also sprach Jamie L. Penman-Smithson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.04.1652 +0200]: > If you check the archives of logcheck-devel, you'll see that this > has already been discussed in the past.
Mh, I forgot to mention, but I was unable to access the list archives yesterday, a problem that was later solved over IRC. Looking now, I cannot find anything else than http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=logcheck-devel&m=114076370027770&w=2 but that thread gave me a new idea... see below > Moving logcheck rules into packages means that people get logcheck > rules whether they use logcheck or not.. This applies to other aspects of the system... PPP, resolvconf, apache, etc. > A possible solution to your gripe is a "which rules (do you|do you > not) want installed" question in debconf. Yes, and a split of rule files like postfix into postfix-2.1 throuh postfix-2.3. Also -- but it's probably way too late for that -- a common prefix for all files installed by logcheck-database would be helpful, and it would make it much easier for maintainers to start providing their own rule files without a file conflict. Finally -- and here's the idea I mentioned above --, we could do without debconf because we *have* a database to query for which rules to run: dpkg. So if we make logcheck only run rules for packages that are installed and configured, I would be much happier. And it would be preferable, because then I wouldn't e.g. configure logcheck, disable foo, a year later, install foo, get swamped, then reconfigure. > Some maintainers don't want to have to maintain logcheck rules. > Most don't use logcheck. They forget to update the rules until > a bug is filed, this is essentially the same situation as we have > now, except that maintenance of logcheck rules is outsourced. Then we help these maintainers. I agree this is a point, but the question I am raising is more about the distribution channel, not about the maintenance burden. > Having logcheck rules moved out of logcheck breaks dedicated > loghosts. If the goal is to support logcheck on loghosts (which sounds weird to me), then you should make it policy that *no* packages provide rule files. > It also makes it more difficult, or even impossible, for people > to use logcheck on a different OS, since they will no longer have > any logcheck rules to use. Well, so far there are no rule files for other OS in the CVS, so I don't see this argument. > While I agree that Debian should be our primary focus, I don't > think we should just abandon everyone who does not use Debian > without a _very good_ reason for doing so. Fundamentally agreed. I just very much dislike the current logcheck situation. I find a bug in /etc/logcheck/*/* and I can't just infer the name of the package from the file name; I look at rule files and notice that they're basically append-and-error-correct-only and hardly ever see lines removed because we have to support potentially 3-5 different versions from one package; I encounter rules that are just plain annoying because they are either so inconsistent, or just carelessly put together. I realise this will require manual work (and I am willing to help out), but it's just a lot easier for me to work on modules than it is to work on a large chunk like logcheck-database is now. Are there other voices? -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system "der glaube an den kausalnexus ist der aberglaube" -- wittgenstein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
_______________________________________________ Logcheck-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
