Hi!
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Thus, I'll probably patch NG to just ignore the perms.
>
> I'll post the patch here (if it's not too ugly ;))
See the attached file. Have fun.
Regards,
Tobias
--
Never touch a burning system.
--- NagiosGrapher.pm.orig 2006-12-07 15:15
Hi!
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > For backwards compatibility, the default would be rwxn.
> >
> > So, the engineers would have: nrx, customer: nr and helpdesk r.
> >
> > Attached is an updated patch.
>
> I'll try to get a peek at it this week.
Well, it took a little longer
Hi Ton.
Ton Voon wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006, at 16:43, Alex Burger wrote:
>> I haven't tried Nagios 3 yet, but it doesn't look like my patch will
>> work with it. I'll see if I can port it over. Any idea when the
>> release date is for v3?
>
> Ethan stated at the Nagios Conference that he was ai
On 6 Nov 2006, at 16:43, Alex Burger wrote:I haven't tried Nagios 3 yet, but it doesn't look like my patch will work with it. I'll see if I can port it over. Any idea when the release date is for v3?Ethan stated at the Nagios Conference that he was aiming for v3 to go stable by end of this year.T
Hi Ton.
Ton Voon wrote:
>> Ton Voon wrote:
> My only request is to add in the ability to check for a single contact
> too. This will be more important in Nagios 3 as Ethan has said you will
> be allowed to specify single contacts from a host/service definition,
> without the need for contactgro
Hi Tobias.
Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> I think one could make a case for x being everything that
> concerns the current state of an object, i.e. mainly
> acknowledgement(s). The w flag could be used for en/disabling
> (semi)permanent stuff, like disabling active checks.
>
> On the other hand, many
Alex Burger wrote:
r: View in web interface
x: Submit commands for this host/service
w: Not really needed yet. Maybe some of the other programs that allow
you to modify the configuration files could use w to allow a user to
modify the host / service.
n: Notify if contact has a pager or ema
On 6 Nov 2006, at 11:29, Hari Sekhon wrote: This is a very interesting thread, especially since I am currently wondering how I can do this sort of thing. I want to give a web interface to consultants to view our web site availability. I have created a user and contactgroup which shows only the serv
This is a very interesting thread, especially since I am currently
wondering how I can do this sort of thing. I want to give a web
interface to consultants to view our web site availability. I have
created a user and contactgroup which shows only the services I have
added the group to. The prob
On 4 Nov 2006, at 16:43, Alex Burger wrote:Ton Voon wrote: Hi Alex,I think the "read/write" attribute needs to be associated with the contact. So this implementation looks more obvious (to me):define contact {name personcontactgroups cg1,cg2,cg3 # means can submit commandscontactgroups_viewonly cg5
Hi!
First off: thanks for all your work, it didn't quite expect so
much (and such constructive/worthwile) feedback.
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006, Alex Burger wrote:
> How about:
>
> r: View in web interface
>
> x: Submit commands for this host/service
>
> w: Not really needed yet. Maybe some of the o
Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Steve Shipway wrote:
Alex Burger wrote:
Leave the groups as they are, but modify the host and service
contact_groups command? For example:
define host{
host_name localhost
contact_groups netops:rw, help
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Steve Shipway wrote:
> Alex Burger wrote:
> > Leave the groups as they are, but modify the host and service
> > contact_groups command? For example:
> > define host{
> > host_name localhost
> > contact_groups netops:rw, helpdesk:r
>
Alex Burger wrote:
> Leave the groups as they are, but modify the host and service
> contact_groups command? For example:
> define host{
> host_name localhost
> contact_groups netops:rw, helpdesk:r
> }
>
> For backwards compatibility, if no permissions
Alex Burger wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think we are looking at this the
wrong way. With file system or application permissions, we would assign
a group to a folder/object, and then pick what rights the group would
have. Why don't we do the same thing with Nagios?
Leave the
Hi Ton.
Ton Voon wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I think the "read/write" attribute needs to be associated with the
> contact. So this implementation looks more obvious (to me):
>
> define contact {
> name person
> contactgroups cg1,cg2,cg3 # means can submit commands
> contactgroups_viewonly cg5,cg6
> }
Hi Alex,This is a really interesting idea. We've recently made a patch to Nagios so that a contact will only see the services in the CGIs based on their contact groups - currently Nagios 2.x will show all services if that contact is a contact for the host (which you would normally do so they receiv
Hi!
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Alex Burger wrote:
> I have expanded on the Altinity patch by adding a 'can_submit_commands'
> and 'can_submit_commands_strict' option to contact groups. The
> limitation of having a can_submit_commands option on the user is that
> it's an all or nothing option. A us
Hi Tobias.
I have expanded on the Altinity patch by adding a 'can_submit_commands'
and 'can_submit_commands_strict' option to contact groups. The
limitation of having a can_submit_commands option on the user is that
it's an all or nothing option. A user is either view-only for all
devices, o
Hi!
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Az wrote:
> > The altinity people have created a patch for the "view some,
> > change none" scenario[0]. Unfortunately, what I'd need is a
> > mechanism for the "view some, change a few" scenario I outlined
> > above.
> Is that to say that "view _all_, change some" wouldn
Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> The altinity people have created a patch for the "view some,
> change none" scenario[0]. Unfortunately, what I'd need is a
> mechanism for the "view some, change a few" scenario I outlined
> above.
Is that to say that "view _all_, change some" wouldn't work for you?
That'
Hi!
I've got a problem that I don't how to solve best in Nagios. I
think other people have run into the same problem (I know that
someone has run into a /similar/ problem).
I'm running 2.5 on a mid-sized installations (~300 hosts, ~2500
services). Thing is, our projects/(host|service)groups vary
22 matches
Mail list logo
