Re: kysmoops (was keysmoops)

2000-05-28 Thread Joey Hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Except that I didn't create /var/log/ksymoops (I wouldn't have known > how to or why to; I had never heard of ksymoops before I noticed the > existence of the log files); it must have been created automatically > in the upgrade process from slink to frozen. > > But that

Re: kysmoops

2000-05-25 Thread mcclosk
|> One of the the required or standard or important packages in frozen |> (potato) recommends the ksymoops package. I avoided it for a long |> time, not feeling need for it, but since I like to = (hold) |> installed packages, and was even more annoyed by the suggestion |> coming up, I went ahead

Re: kysmoops

2000-05-25 Thread Bolan Meek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > |> Given that the directory isn't being rotated, is contantly growing, > |> neither "keysmoop" nor "keysmoops" returns any hits on Google, and > |> that "smoop" looks suspiciously like "snoop".. > > Forgive me; I mis-typed. The directory is actually `ksymoops' and it's >

Re: kysmoops (was keysmoops)

2000-05-25 Thread Dave Sherohman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Forgive me; I mis-typed. The directory is actually `ksymoops' and it's > obviously not the result of a security breach. > Oh well---another Linux learning experience, I suppose. For both of us... Glad to hear that your system's secure! -- "Two words: Windows survives.

Re: kysmoops (was keysmoops)

2000-05-25 Thread mcclosk
|> Given that the directory isn't being rotated, is contantly growing, |> neither "keysmoop" nor "keysmoops" returns any hits on Google, and |> that "smoop" looks suspiciously like "snoop".. Forgive me; I mis-typed. The directory is actually `ksymoops' and it's obviously not the result of a secur