Bug#355949: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#355949: run-parts vs. find

[Todd Troxell]

Hi Andrew,

On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 02:23:45PM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
> The changelog for version 1.2.43 says the reason for switching to
> 'find' from 'run-parts':
> 
>    * Use 'find' instead of 'run-parts' to list the contents of
>      directories since 'run-parts' cannot handle filenames with periods.
>      Update control to depend on findutils.
> 
> It seems like not processing rule files with dots in them would be a
> feaure, not a bug. Reverting back to run-parts would fix bugs 355383
> and 353793 as well as this one. The only stipulation would be not being
> able to use dots (or some other characters) in rule files you want to
> use, but some sites depend on rule files with those characters to not
> be processed. Can't logcheck just go back to using run-parts?

Some sites depend on rules with periods, and that's what brought on this
change.  A user was confused when a file named like.so was not read.

I'm inclined to believe that leaving scraps in the etc tree is sloppy
administration, and the .disabled stuff is a horrid kluge.

It seems that there are a bunch of users depending on the old functionality,
so I'm going to support run-parts anyway.  It will also need to be documented
that rule file names  can only contain letters, numbers, underscores, and
hyphens.

-- 
Todd Troxell
http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat