Rick Johnson wrote:
> Patrick Nelson wrote:
>> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>>> It's a bug. Get the Rawhide version.
>>
>> Oh really... shoot how much time I just wasted... darn...
>>
>> So rawhide is 7.3?
>
> Rawhide is rawhide - lastest and greatest bleeding edge. Latest betas
> are usually based
Patrick Nelson wrote:
> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Patrick Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> RH80
>>>
>>> Can not figure out why logwatch isn't producing any reports.
>>
>> It's a bug. Get the Rawhide version.
>>
>
> Oh really... shoot how much time I just wasted... darn...
>
> So ra
Patrick Nelson wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
It's a bug. Get the Rawhide version.
Oh really... shoot how much time I just wasted... darn...
So rawhide is 7.3?
Rawhide is rawhide - lastest and greatest bleeding edge. Latest betas
are usually based on rawhide (or a good portion of it).
ftp://ftp
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Patrick Nelson wrote:
>
>> RH80
>>
>> Can not figure out why logwatch isn't producing any reports.
>
> It's a bug. Get the Rawhide version.
>
Oh really... shoot how much time I just wasted... darn...
So rawhide is 7.3?
--
redhat-list mailing
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Patrick Nelson wrote:
> RH80
>
> Can not figure out why logwatch isn't producing any reports.
It's a bug. Get the Rawhide version.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
redhat-list ma
RH80
Can not figure out why logwatch isn't producing any reports.
There is a link in /etc/daily pointing to /etc/lod.d/logwatch which points
to /etc/log.d/scripts/logwatch.pl
I can run the script like
cd /etc/log.d
./logwatch --print
and I get no output. So I drill down deeper:
./logwatch