also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.03.17.1748 +0100]:
> Since logcheck ships lots and lots of files, it may be best for lpr to
> either rename the file to something like, like lpr.package, or just drop
> the file altogether. I'll take a look at the rules today and get this done..
The
Frédéric Brière wrote:
> severity 418393 serious
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:49:01PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>> Yes, definitely. The fix is just to remove the conffile from lpr. No
>
> Seems to me like these two files should at least be merged, as they have
> different rules.
Since
martin f krafft wrote:
> logcheck-database exists as a bag for rules that are not in the
> packages. If a package provides its own rule files, the
> logcheck-database must not.
Yes, that makes very good sense. I've just added the missing rule from
1.2.63 logcheck-database to lpr package.
Does thi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:33:48PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Does this mean the bug should be reassigned to logcheck-database?
The appropriate action, IMO, would be to Replace: logcheck-database; we
can then remove that file at our leisure. (I for one am using l-d from
backports.org on my server
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 418393 serious
Bug#418393: Upgrade problem: lpr tries to overwrite logcheck-database files
Severity set to `serious' from `normal'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
5 matches
Mail list logo
