also sprach Ronny Adsetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.17.1010 +0200]:
Personally I'd prefer it to be distributed with logcheck. When you
have a centralised log server running logcheck, it's rather
painful trying to get rules set up when packages ship their own
logcheck rules.
This is not what
Le jeudi 17 avril 2008 à 10:34 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit :
also sprach Ronny Adsetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.17.1010 +0200]:
Personally I'd prefer it to be distributed with logcheck. When you
have a centralised log server running logcheck, it's rather
painful trying to get rules
martin f krafft said at 17/04/2008 09:34:
also sprach Ronny Adsetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.17.1010 +0200]:
Personally I'd prefer it to be distributed with logcheck. When you
have a centralised log server running logcheck, it's rather
painful trying to get rules set up when packages ship
also sprach Olivier Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.17.1043 +0200]:
And what about the diversion option, which can help accomodate both uses
of logcheck ?
Since the files are in /etc and dpkg conffiles, diversions can't be
used. Arguably, that's a bug in dpkg, but it's been the case for
also sprach Ronny Adsetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.04.17.1040 +0200]:
I dunno about extensively, but sure. Wanna point me in the
direction of stuff that needs doing? I'll have a look at the
outstanding bugs later today.
Bug triaging mainly, right now. And then the shell script needs
a lot of
5 matches
Mail list logo
