also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.03.17.1748 +0100]:
> Since logcheck ships lots and lots of files, it may be best for lpr to
> either rename the file to something like, like lpr.package, or just drop
> the file altogether. I'll take a look at the rules today and get this done..
The
martin f krafft wrote:
> logcheck-database exists as a bag for rules that are not in the
> packages. If a package provides its own rule files, the
> logcheck-database must not.
Yes, that makes very good sense. I've just added the missing rule from
1.2.63 logcheck-database to lpr package.
Does thi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:33:48PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Does this mean the bug should be reassigned to logcheck-database?
The appropriate action, IMO, would be to Replace: logcheck-database; we
can then remove that file at our leisure. (I for one am using l-d from
backports.org on my server
3 matches
Mail list logo
