[Logcheck-devel] intermittent access this week

Todd Troxell ttroxell at debian.org
Sun Jun 27 06:20:46 UTC 2004


Okay! Back now. <:

I think I found a bunch of legacy bugs too.  I'm sorting everything
everything in my head, but it seems there are cases not dealt with in
logoutput()  more on this later.

About setting the perm stuff unconditional:
I'm still trying to make contact with the submitter of #253998.  I'm not sure
how his case could have come up.  Anyone know why the permission stuff needs
to be conditional, anyway?  Is it just because it would possibly be
redundant?

-Todd

On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:39:00PM +0200, maks attems wrote:
> hey todd,
> 
> cool, my examens are still on going, whish i could smell the sea side.
> 
> > I'll be at sea on and off this week, and as such my Internet access will
> > depend on wifi availability while in port.  22a seems stable, but if any
> > critical problems arise, feel free to prepare a release and bug Alfie
> > to upload it.
> 
> looks nice, will wait for it to go to sarge,
> unless something unexpectly grave turns up.
>  
> > On the brighter side, I expect to be extremely bored while offline so I'll
> > probably get some logcheck work done. <:
> 
> cool, looking forward.
> i did some quick new switches yesterday,
> hope they will have enough time to get into sarge.
> they close some nice wishlist bugs (have to contact authors).
> 
> i switched my naming scheme of our testing releases to
> oldversion+newversion(beta|rc)[1-9] 1.2.22a+1.2.23beta1
> so that people how add debian.stro.at to their apt lines
> don't miss the official releases :)
> uploaed current HEAD as aboves testing version.
> 
> #253998 is yet another permissions bug,
> when looking through our code yesterday (while moving it),
> i saw that we didn't even check if we could read our offset files.
> 
> i wonder if we should unconditionalize the permissions stuff out of
> logcheck.postinst, i've seen the new of rules that i added in my
> local logcheck dirs had permissions like those:
> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          383 Jun 11 09:29 local-scponly
> yeeah logcheck could pick them up, so it's not critical,
> but we had another bug report who reported problems with local rules:
> #251404: 
> "After some more checks it seams that it is ok. I have a lot of local
> rules, so it is difficult to sort out this issue. Especially it is a
> problem that remotely installed packages come with their own logcheck
> rules which do not get included into the logcheck rules set."
> 
> 
> so far enjoy your sea trip and relax :)
> a++ maks
> 



-- 
[   Todd J. Troxell                                         ,''`.
      Student, Debian GNU/Linux Developer, SysAdmin, Geek  : :' :
      http://debian.org || http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat    `. `' 
                                                             `-     ]
-------------- 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/20040627/c2a93dfb/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Logcheck-devel mailing list