Yum and Logwatch Reports

[Don Maxwell]

After upgrading from FC2 to FC3 (which was a SMOOTH and easy upgrade)
my logwatch reports no longer include a section on yum activity.  I
have compared the old logwatch.conf and yum.conf files, but did not
catch a difference which might be a factor.

I choose to let yum automatically install changed rpm files.  Yes, I
know this can be dangerous, but I prefer the risk of potential
surprises over the risk of not getting around to manual involvement in
updates.

In FC1 and FC2, the "yum" sections were useful so that I could get a
sense of what changed that showed up in my Tripwire reports.

Any ideas?

Thanks!
  --Don

[Sharon Kimble]

Don Maxwell wrote:
> After upgrading from FC2 to FC3 (which was a SMOOTH and easy upgrade)
> my logwatch reports no longer include a section on yum activity.  I
> have compared the old logwatch.conf and yum.conf files, but did not
> catch a difference which might be a factor.
>
> I choose to let yum automatically install changed rpm files.  Yes, I
> know this can be dangerous, but I prefer the risk of potential
> surprises over the risk of not getting around to manual involvement in
> updates.
>
> In FC1 and FC2, the "yum" sections were useful so that I could get a
> sense of what changed that showed up in my Tripwire reports.
>
> Any ideas?

Don.
I had the same problem, and I've got round it by using 'webmin' and then
reading the 'yum' report in its 'system logs' section each day. I also run
the following script every five hours to tell me what is available for
updating;-
======================
#!/bin/sh

/usr/bin/yum check-update >/opt/logwatch/yum.update
======================
and this system works very well for me.

Hope it helps you.

Take care
Sharon.

[Paul Howarth]

Don Maxwell wrote:
> After upgrading from FC2 to FC3 (which was a SMOOTH and easy upgrade)
> my logwatch reports no longer include a section on yum activity.  I
> have compared the old logwatch.conf and yum.conf files, but did not
> catch a difference which might be a factor.
>
> I choose to let yum automatically install changed rpm files.  Yes, I
> know this can be dangerous, but I prefer the risk of potential
> surprises over the risk of not getting around to manual involvement in
> updates.
>
> In FC1 and FC2, the "yum" sections were useful so that I could get a
> sense of what changed that showed up in my Tripwire reports.
>
> Any ideas?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140429

Until such time as an official update comes out, I'll maintain an 
updated logwatch package that contains Gilles Detillieux's patch to fix 
this bug (see bugzilla entry above) at:

http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/

Cheers, Paul.

[Arthur Pemberton]

Paul Howarth wrote:
> Don Maxwell wrote:
> > After upgrading from FC2 to FC3 (which was a SMOOTH and easy upgrade)
> > my logwatch reports no longer include a section on yum activity.  I
> > have compared the old logwatch.conf and yum.conf files, but did not
> > catch a difference which might be a factor.
> >
> > I choose to let yum automatically install changed rpm files.  Yes, I
> > know this can be dangerous, but I prefer the risk of potential
> > surprises over the risk of not getting around to manual involvement in
> > updates.
> >
> > In FC1 and FC2, the "yum" sections were useful so that I could get a
> > sense of what changed that showed up in my Tripwire reports.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140429
>
> Until such time as an official update comes out, I'll maintain an 
> updated logwatch package that contains Gilles Detillieux's patch to 
> fix this bug (see bugzilla entry above) at:
>
> http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/
>
> Cheers, Paul.

Could you possibly summarise the manual changes to be made to fix the 
problem?

[Paul Howarth]

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:47 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Don Maxwell wrote:
> > > After upgrading from FC2 to FC3 (which was a SMOOTH and easy upgrade)
> > > my logwatch reports no longer include a section on yum activity.  I
> > > have compared the old logwatch.conf and yum.conf files, but did not
> > > catch a difference which might be a factor.
> > >
> > > I choose to let yum automatically install changed rpm files.  Yes, I
> > > know this can be dangerous, but I prefer the risk of potential
> > > surprises over the risk of not getting around to manual involvement in
> > > updates.
> > >
> > > In FC1 and FC2, the "yum" sections were useful so that I could get a
> > > sense of what changed that showed up in my Tripwire reports.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140429
> >
> > Until such time as an official update comes out, I'll maintain an 
> > updated logwatch package that contains Gilles Detillieux's patch to 
> > fix this bug (see bugzilla entry above) at:
> >
> > http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/
> >
> > Cheers, Paul.
>
> Could you possibly summarise the manual changes to be made to fix the 
> problem?

The problem is that logwatch is configured to use the wrong date format
when parsing the yum log file. In order to fix this, a custom date-
parsing script is needed. This is the attachment to Comment #9 in the
bugzilla report referenced above, which should be put in the
file /etc/log.d/scripts/logfiles/yum/applydate (you'll probably need to
create the directory /etc/log.d/scripts/logfiles/yum and make the script
executable). The other thing you need to do is to
edit /etc/log.d/conf/logfiles/yum.conf and remove the line that says
"*ApplyUSDate", again as mentioned in Comment #9.

Paul.