[Logcheck-devel] Re: [Logcheck-commits] CVS logcheck/rulefiles/linux/ignore.d.server

[Todd Troxell]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:28:55AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Todd Troxell <ttroxell at debian.org> [2004-08-12 14:54]:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +0200, maks attems wrote:
> >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004, CVS User ttroxell wrote:
> >> > Log Message:
> >> > add qmail, proftpd rules
> >> 
> >> qmail is nonfree, changelog already features a removal of old qmail rules,
> >> i'm against shipping 1.2.25 with those.
> > 
> > Could you explain your reasoning for this?  I don't see how it hurts logcheck
> > to have a few extra rules included.  It is sad that qmail is non-free, but
> > it is a widely used MTA.
> 
>  Well, a few extra rules makes some extra rules to maintain. Especially
> with qmail it is a PITA because of all the patch sets flowing around
> which produce all different log entries.
> 
>  The efforts are much better invested by convincing the maintainer of
> those patches to provide the logcheck files themselfes, because they
> know from first hand what logentries they produce.
> 
>  I do not strongly object to qmail rules, on the other hand who knows
> which strange ideas djb might come up with respect to the loglines his
> strangely licensed MTA might produce.

Yes, I think it is generally better when maintainers can take care of the
their own rules.

I will file a wishlist bug on qmail-src asking to include our rules.
Objections to including the rules in the meanwhile?

-- 
[   Todd J. Troxell                                         ,''`.
      Student, Debian GNU/Linux Developer, SysAdmin, Geek  : :' :
      http://debian.org || http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat    `. `' 
                                                             `-     ]