On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:00:15PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Jamie L. Penman-Smithson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.22.2055 > +0100]: > > So why should there be a logcheck-database package at all? > > good question. in the long run there shouldn't be. although it could > contain all the filters for standard messages, like kernel stuff. > > > The reason there is a logcheck-database package is because some > > maintainers don't know enough about regexp to create good enough > > rules for logcheck, or in some cases because they don't really > > want to. > > then we help them. > > > If the maintainer of courier wants to take over maintenance of > > logcheck rules, that's good, however I don't see that this > > warrants a bug against either package. Unless some rules for > > courier are incorrect? > > it's a wishlist bug, no? that's what they are for. > > courier already has its own rule files. thus it only makes sense.
Ahh ok. Makes sense to pool our rules. At first I thought you were suggesting that we force a random subset of our rules upon another maintainer :) So, some collaboration is needed. -- Todd Troxell http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
