Is it just me, or is there a reason for it?

R Kimber richardkimber at btinternet.com
Sat Aug 14 15:52:23 UTC 2010


On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:57:27 -0500
C de-Avillez wrote:

> Generically speaking my answer would be no. For the udev message: it
> is pointing to a deprecated usage, that has to be adjusted. It is
> important for this type of message to keep on being issued until the
> changes are made.

I'm really surprised that it should be thought that everyone should get a
message in order to keep developers on message.

> Finally, for the 'audit' message -- most definitely stays.

Well, I don't see the point of it.  The user has already had an on-screen
error message at the time.  All it seems to say is that the user (or
a program) tried to open a file that evince couldn't open, probably because
evince isn't designed to open such files. I can't see how useful an audit
of that could be.

> > or put more effort into creating the
> > necessary regular expressions that will allow logcheck to filter
> > them out.
> 
> This would be something for the logchecker hackers, or users. If it
> is a good change, upstream will accept and include the changes into
> logchecker. You could do it, and propose your changes upstream.
> 
> But, right now, all  I can see points to a not-enough-adjusted
> logchecker configuration on your side.

But part of my point is that most users can't, or won't want to master
extended regular expressions.

- Richard.
-- 
Richard Kimber
Political Science Resources
http://www.PoliticsResources.net/




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list