Hi, on Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 17:36:40 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > 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. [...] Yes, at least for packages already under revision control, it should be trivial to give the logcheck team commit access to the external rulefiles. Though I do see a higher burden on the side of the logcheck maintainers to do changes in dozens of different repositories instead of just the logcheck one... > 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 doesn't sound all that weird to me, and especially the nice macro stuff you're working on will enable more people to do this with the stock rulefiles (due to being able to cope with different line starts). While that policy suggestion sounds harsh at first, it actually doesn't sound that bad after all. :) Given any maintainer who wants to keep maintaining rulefiles for his package (and doesn't prove himself incompetent at it ;P) would be given access to do so, this wouldn't negatively effect anyone and bring the benefits of enabling loghost usage and getting rid of the old and unmaintained rules sitting in packages due to users submitting them there at some point to everyone. > 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 [...] Having branches (assuming a SCM system suitable for that ;P) would be a theoretical solution, but the non-Debian one would probably become an unmaintained mess in practice... ;/ Another case just came to my mind; upstream shipping logcheck rulefiles, but as I have not seen that happen yet, this might be ignored for now. ;) > Are there other voices? Like in the older thread, I still tend towards having the rules in logcheck-database. While my maintenance concerns from back then could (ideally) be addressed by co-maintaining the external rules, the loghost argument remains valid. elmar -- .'"`. /"\ | :' : Elmar Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / `. `' GPG key available via pgp.net against HTML email X `- & vCards / \
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Logcheck-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
