Re: [Logcheck-devel] upload 1.2.64
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:55:59PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.26.1536 +0100]: also sprach maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.09.2043 +0400]: latest seems to have landed as ebuild in gentoo: 18:34 kamil I'm using the git build from yesterday 18:34 kamil actually I made a Gentoo ebuild for it :) so time to catch up with sid, announcing upload for tommorrow thursday. if any known issue shows up please shout. Which Thursday? :) Am I correct then in assuming that you won't do anything, Max? nobody acked the upload back then and as i'm not in uploaders i didn't want to push too much, please go ahead. enough linux-2.6 work anyway. -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
[Logcheck-devel] Bug#443171: Bug#443171: Bug#443171: Bug#443171: Bug#443171: rules to ignore acpid messages
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:29:13PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach maximilian attems [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.09.21.1311 +0100]: no the reason is pretty simple, you want to match *all* the line. Why? strict design so that not something sneeks in at the end. -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] git-svn woes (was: [Logcheck-commits] r1695 - logcheck/branches)
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:39:11PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.08.23.1231 +0200]: cleaning up the mess, restarting this branch. sorry. sorry for the commit log mess I just created, I am not totally down with git-svn yet, I guess. That said, anyone oppose if I move logcheck to git? hehe :) but as i'm nowadays more an observer and code killer, don't weight my vote.. very happy git user!! -- maks ps make sure to have exp git-core it has git-svn improvements. ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#379215: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#379215: logcheck: [INTL:fr] French debconf templates translation update
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Michel Grentzinger wrote: Please find the attached fr.po file, which is an update of the french translation of the debconf templates. This file has been reviewed by the contributors of the debian-l10n-french mailing-list. thanks, had already an updated version, but seem to have forgotten debian-l10n-french. yours is better commited. Could you put this file to the debian/po/ directory of this package, in remplacement of the old fr.po file ? done, just a small nitpick, see below msgstr Par défaut, la politique pour les rapports d'analyse est « serveur » et ces rapports sont envoyés par courriel au superutilisateur. Si vous voulez changer cela, vous devez modifier le fichier /etc/logcheck/logcheck.conf. i never read courriel and poedit seems to agree. shall i change that in courrier? /me thinks that's a typo. amicalement -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#377618: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#377618: logcheck: Please do not abuse debconf
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thomas Huriaux wrote: Hi, You are using two debconf notes which really look like a debconf abuse (from debconf-devel(7): It should be used only for important notes that the user really should see, since debconf will go to great pains to make sure the user sees it). The first note (logcheck/install-note) should probably be moved to a README.Debian file or somewhere else in the documentation. Or you should really use debconf to configure these two options (report level and address) instead of displaying a note. debconf notes are usually more effective than README's, also the note is _only_ displayed at level medium so i fail to see the abuse of the install-note. The second note (logcheck/changes) can probably be removed. It no longer concerns supported transitions in Debian: the version 1.2.39 is in sarge, and if I understand correctly, it is for transitions from a version 1.2.3. However, this note should have been in a NEWS.Debian file. it only shows up on upgrades and will be removed postetch. currently we may wish to backport latest etch, so such upgrade handling must stay. -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#377618: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#377618: logcheck: Please do not abuse debconf
tags 377618 -patch tags 377618 wontfix severity 377618 wishlist stop and no thanks On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: snipp No, the argument of the priority is not valid. The lowest the priority is, the more experienced the user is expected to be. An experienced user usually knows where to find the relevant doc, and expects to find it at the right place. Moreover, as I said in my previous mail, you should use debconf to _configure_ the package, not to tell the user he/she can configure it. I therefore attach a patch to configure with debconf the two related items. Please check it carefully as I made it quickly. big NACK, this is a real policy violation, one is not allowed to change configfiles with debconf. you would need to put it into /etc/defaults/logcheck. and as you currently failed to convince me politely, downgrading this bug. this debconf messages were added way before the logcheck team formed and we cleaned them up already a lot. the second note will soon be phase out. See also policy 3.9.1: Packages should try to minimize the amount of prompting they need to do You seem to use debconf only because it is more effective please notice the subtle _should_ -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] Re: so, about preprocessing... (#376106)
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 06:46:30AM -0400, Todd Troxell wrote: fullack on the MACRO expansion indeed we missed a good working implementation until now. I am really in favour of this and would start to implement run-time translation as soon as I hear people who're also in favour. Go for it :) i would like to see current head uploaded and pushed to testing. we already have a lots of changes, it's better to get them out. so that the newer MACRO code can go in as 1.3.0 -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] Re: so, about preprocessing... (#376106)
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:27:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Todd Troxell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.05.2321 +0200]: Unless there are objections, I say go for it.. been wanting to propose such a thing for a while. I wonder if it would be possible to cleanly merge the current CVS history.. yes. Anyway, yeah, I'd welcome using SVN for 1.3 and post. I'll wait for the next version and then see when I have a day to spare. During that day I'd just call commit-freeze to make things easy. great. please take care too for the commits mails as disscussed on irc. thanks -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] smart attribute messages
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:40:01PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: Can we please ignore SMART Usage and Prefailure attribute changes? The rationale is that smartd will send out separate email anyway when something bad happens. Comments? we already do the same for nagios. -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] moving rules out of logcheck-database into the packages
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 05:36:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Jamie L. Penman-Smithson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.04.1652 +0200]: 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. that's only usefull if you push the rulefiles to the packages. 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. this is a very common logcheck install and if you look at the archives back that was the main reason to move logfiles back into logcheck-db i was quite frustrated back than that Rhonda, who doesn't do much rule file managamgent heavily voiced the contrare. (no that is on attack, you did marvelous job for the debconf and the template translations) but xtat didn't rule back then as project leader so i don't remain as active as before that discussion. moving the rules to the packages also really makes it harder to have logcheck for another os. their postfix is very similar to ours, so they should just inherit the rules. now that there seem some logcheck action again, i'd be motivated to clean up old upgrade path stuff. regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] Re: so, about preprocessing... (#376106)
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 05:34:49PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.04.0052 +0200]: @LEAD@ @PROC_SMTP@: @QUEUE_ID@: @TO@, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@, @DELAY@, @DSNS@, status=deliverable \(@SMTP_SSTATUS@ recipient @EMAIL@ ok\)@EOL@ I just noticed http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=logcheck-develm=114076370327806w=2 and the fact that Eric Evans already had this idea a year before me. I apologise for not having done my research, at least we have two implementations now (and we both use @VAR@ syntax). afair his approach also needed an higher scripting language usage, which we shouldn't force user on afair. regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] moving rules out of logcheck-database into the packages
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 05:46:06PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: now that there seem some logcheck action again, i'd be motivated to clean up old upgrade path stuff. i've also an logtail.c in the pipes will see to dust it out and post it for review here. regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] procedure to modify rule files
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 07:54:07PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: As I told you yesterday, I now have commit rights to the logcheck CVS. My question is whether it's okay for me to just start merging in my own bug reports, and later make fixes without filing individual bugs. I now have the CVS mapped over /etc/logcheck on most of my machines and it will be much easier just to commit (with proper log messages, of course). looking forward that you fix those bugs, concerning the directions about logcheck-database and more infrastructural stuff, we like to discuss. otherwise please just go on. :) best regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Re: [Logcheck-devel] New logcheck committer
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 06:21:25PM -0400, Todd Troxell wrote: Martin F. Krafft (madduck) has been added to the project. P.S. I'd like to get a release out sometime next week. -- Todd Troxell http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat cool warmly welcome! the macros looked promising at quick overview as they don't require an higher script language. -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#370689: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#370689: The qmail rules of logcheck won't work
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:14:57PM +0200, Heilig Szabolcs wrote: Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.39 The /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/qmail rule contains Windows style (\r\n) line endings. I experienced, logcheck doesn't like that. With correnct (\n) line endings logcheck started to ignore the specified log entries. The qmail rule entry contains 6 rows all with wrong Windows linkbreaks. there is no qmail rulefiles in a recent logcheck installation, we should check why it was not removed on upgrade. regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#353508: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#353508: logcheck-database: Ignore (f|)cron messages, please
reassign 353508 fcron reassign 355214 fcron stop On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Adam Porter wrote: I use cron and fcron on my system. I have them set to e-mail me if necessary, so I don't need logcheck to show me their log messages, especially for successful jobs. Could rules to ignore these be added? looked up fcron in popcon, not sure if should ship rules for fcron in logcheck-database per default. hope that the maintainer can add some logcheck rules for his users. hints about logcheck rules: /usr/share/doc/logcheck-database/README.logcheck-database.gz Here are some examples: localhost fcron: Job curl --silent --show-error -o ~/Misc/myDelicious.xml -O 'http://del.icio.us/api/posts/recent?count=1' started for user me (pid 12995) localhost fcron: Job curl --silent --show-error -o ~/Misc/myDelicious.xml -O 'http://del.icio.us/api/posts/recent?count=1' completed regards -- maks ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
