Bug#288580: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#288580: logtail: Logtail (not logcheck) needs perl 5.8 (Bug#252078 wrongly fixed)

[maximilian attems]

severity 252078 wishlist
tags 252078 -patch
tags 252078 pending
thank and no thanks

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> severity 252078 important
> tags 252078 patch
> thanks
care not to do ping pong games!
backports fall clearly under the cat of wishlists.
 
> Please do _not_ downgrade the severity: this bug is a violation of
> Debian Policy 3.5!
no it is not, Perl 5.8.x is in sarge base,
and this package is target for it!
 
> Yes. I know. And I know that they are both contained in the same
> _source_ package.
> 
> I explicitly talk about different _binary_ packages.

ok, fixed. in current cvs.
 
> >>Logtail (and not logcheck) should have a versioned dependency on perl.
> > 
> > perhaps that can easily be addded,
> 
> Sure. Patch provided - I did not think that was necessary, but obviously
> I was wrong...

the patch was asked for the getopts wish. 
 
 
> > but more importantly it should be in c and not in perl.
> 
> Huh? Could you please explain?

logtail _was_ written in c.
and that may well get resurrected after sarge.
 
> Who introduced getopts in the code? I'd assume (s)he'd be able to come
> up with a much smarter solution than I.
> 
> If not, I'll pass it on if I figure out a better approach than simply
> avoiding the getopts code change for the upgrade of my woody backport.

due of time constraints patches are highly welcome. 

--
maks