[Logcheck-devel] 4 important bugs again <;

maks attems debian at sternwelten.at
Fri Jun 4 17:26:41 UTC 2004


On Fri, 04 Jun 2004, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

>  The thing is that its not only about backports. Of course I know that
> sarge has 5.8 already and mixes must not be supported, but we can avoid
> by stating clearly in the control file that our perl usage needs 5.8.
> IMHO it should stay and is a good thing.

ok added versioned dependency!
 
>  I'll be contacting Joey || mdz regarding this and check if they would
> accept an update for that.
> 
>  I like to notice that this problem existed _before_ the security update
> I prepared for woody. This part of code was in before already, so it is
> not a problem that just arised because of the update.
..
>  Caught Joey in a really good (= weak) moment, he said he would accept
> the oneline fix (pseudopatch):
> 
> #v+
>  db_get logcheck-database/security_level
> +RET=${RET:-workstation}
>  linkfile logcheck.ignore $RET
>  linkfile ignore.d $RET
> #v-
> 
>  Can others confirm that this is no bashism, and propose a good
> changelog entry that will tell Joey that his decision to allow this fix
> go into woody?

woow nice catch, and good explanation. :)
tell me where your package is and i'll test it with dash.
 
> > #244411: logcheck: Upgrade loses symlinks in /etc/logcheck
 
>  I can see there is a problem, unfortunately...  We can the bug reporter
> that he shall "dpkg-reconfigure logcheck-database" to change the symlink
> rather than to changing it by hand. debconf implementation was quite
> b0rked back then but can't be fixed for woody, sorry.

he'll get that email and i'll downgrade.
 
ok cool so far, but inbetween we got a new grave bug and a new important
one:

#252597: logcheck: user logchecks mails should be delivered to root
	submitter want's an alias for _really_ getting his mails,
	as far as i can see from his posting he is using exim,
	strange that he didn't receive emails with 1.2.20a??
	can this be reproduced, the bug reporter is quite 
	responsive, maybe ask him if this bug was not due to prior
	logcheck version?

#252661: logcheck-database contains file also in sendmail
	this one is a sarge blocker for 1.2.21.
	sorry i didn't knew that sendmail was also shipping its file.
	i'll rename the file logcheck-sendmail in cvs as quick fix.

todd, what do you want to do?
1.2.21a with just that fix:
  * Rename conflicting logcheck-sendmail rule in logcheck-sendmail_tmp
    Sendmail ships aboves rule. (Closes: #252661, #252556)

or release current 1.2.22, hmm still no testing mode, 
i'll leave it up to you and there is a testing package for 1.2.22
at the usual place with aboves fix (minus changelog entry = current head):
deb http://debian.stro.at sarge/


a++ maks

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20040604/e06cd1d9/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Logcheck-devel mailing list