Am 01.05.2012 um 13:57 schrieb martin f krafft: > also sprach Thilo Uttendorfer <deb...@uttendorfer.net> [2012.04.30.1513 > +0200]: >> Although it probably could replace logcheck, I would not recommend >> it to use it that way because the syntax is much more complex. > > I don't quite understand. Are you telling me that I will not be able > to properly configure logsurfer (even if it is more complex) and > then purge logcheck and have at least the same service available?
No, this is a misunderstanding: If you configure logsurfer properly it can replace logcheck. I just would not use it that way (just my opinion), because the nice thing with logcheck is that the rules are very simple and a lot of other packages ship already their own rules for logcheck. I would use logsurfer as an addition to logcheck for example when I need more then a single line of a log (the "context" feature in logsurfer) or if I need react immediately to an event (real-time). > Can logsurfer only execute an action when a filter (?) matches? The > nice thing about logcheck was that it always fired except if an > exception matched, which is the proper way to do it! You can configure logsurfer that way as well. Thilo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
