Am Freitag, 19. Dezember 2014, 16:43:38 schrieb Martin Pitt: > Martin Steigerwald [2014-12-19 15:58 +0100]: > > And with that question you dismiss the rest of my bug report? I asked some > > more question. > > Where did Michael say that he dismissed the rest? At least I consider > it a perfectly valid bug report (at least until you started swearing).
Thank you. > > Still, I want it to stop. > > So do I, this wasn't intended. The upstream log says it's supposed to > go into the journal, not spam dmesg. Okay, I want something different here: I don´t want those messages go anywhere. I want to get rid of those messages completely. So I don´t want the Linux kernel to audit on my desktop machines, I don´t want auditing to be started by systemd. Please provide and/or advice on an easy way to accomplish it, preferably without having to resort to audit=0 kernel parameter. Or even better: Make the whole stuff opt in. > > [rant] > > Can we please let this go? We've had enough of this pointless ranting > recently, and it's not helping anyone. Sorry, I felt attacked. Understandably so, I think, at least I understand myself here after all what has happened. I and Michael Biebl have a history of difficulties in communication in bug reports regarding systemd, I just thought my feedback gets discarded again. Compare the I-message "I don´t see Jessie affected as systemd 215 does not enable auditing" to "How is that relevant for jessie which has v215?" and consider which one of those is easier to understand as a attack given the history of discussions around systemd. So I will use audit=0 nor now and wait for another resolution. I will keep systemd from experimental for testing for now, as you seem to value my feedback. Thank you, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
