On Sat, 18 Mar 2023, 15:12 Holger Levsen, <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 06:00:06PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > > aaaaaaaaaaah, thanks! I only checked > /usr/share/doc/logcheck/NEWS.Debian.gz > > but not /usr/share/doc/logcheck-database/NEWS.Debian.gz > > now that I read it and followed the advice and the very nice > sed example there, I can they that it worked flawlessly and was > very easy to do. Thank you for that NEWS entry! > > > so maybe reassign this bug to src:release-notes? > > this question is still open... though maybe cloning the bug is even > better, I'd really appreciated a small pointer to logcheck-database's NEWS > file in the NEWS for logcheck... > I have submitted something against release-notes so that is in hand. rsyslog has #1031827 which seems to at least have had a response in 2023 I dont mind adding an entry for logcheck's NEWS as well as/instead of logcheck-database's NEWS, @Mathias Gibbens what do you think? The one drawback i see is that 99.9% of people will upgrade both logcheck and logcheck-database together so will get 2 emails from apt-listchanges if we put it in both..... So we should delete it from logcheck-database's NEWS I think? - logcheck does require the same layout of rules even if you dont use logcheck-database so i think this makes sense. I hope this would not crash apt-listchanges fir unstable users if the NEWS file shrinks/disappears due to whatever culls.old entries...?
