Logrotate config file needs to be owned by root

[yubiuser]

What does this PR aim to accomplish?:

Currently, logrotate of the log files is broken. Reason is, that the logrotate config file needs to be owned by root and must not be writable by group or others. Otherwise errors occure.

nanopi@nanopi:~$ pihole flush once
  [i] Flushing /var/log/pihole/pihole.log ...warning: Potentially dangerous mode on /etc/pihole/logrotate: 0660
error: Ignoring /etc/pihole/logrotate because it is writable by group or others.

nanopi@nanopi:~$ sudo chmod g-w /etc/pihole/logrotate 
nanopi@nanopi:~$ pihole flush once
  [i] Flushing /var/log/pihole/pihole.log ...error: Ignoring /etc/pihole/logrotate because the file owner is wrong (should be root or user with uid 0).


nanopi@nanopi:~$ sudo chown root /etc/pihole/logrotate 
nanopi@nanopi:~$ sudo pihole flush once
  [✓] Flushed /var/log/pihole/pihole.log

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm the following:

1. I have read and understood the contributors guide, as well as this entire template. I understand which branch to base my commits and Pull Requests against.
2. I have commented my proposed changes within the code and I have tested my changes.
3. I am willing to help maintain this change if there are issues with it later.
4. It is compatible with the EUPL 1.2 license
5. I have squashed any insignificant commits. (git rebase)
6. I have checked that another pull request for this purpose does not exist.
7. I have considered, and confirmed that this submission will be valuable to others.
8. I accept that this submission may not be used, and the pull request closed at the will of the maintainer.
9. I give this submission freely, and claim no ownership to its content.

---

• I have read the above and my PR is ready for review. Check this box to confirm

[DL6ER]

Should we really do this on every FTL restart? Having said that I do see what the intention is: fix it whenever it is broken, have service pihole-FTL restart fix things in magic ways.

This question does not want to imply I'm against this, this question just came to my mind when seeing this.

---

On other matters: You did not check the checkbox ;-)

[yubiuser]

On other matters: You did not check the checkbox ;-)

The confirmation checkbox is to far down.

---

I think this is a nice way to handle stuff in a save way - we have such a complex bash design with all the paths triggering updates, checkouts, repairs... they often call the install script and source and execute various parts of it.