Bug#232127: marked as done (RFP: logwatch -- system log analysis utility)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:50:48 GMT
with message-id <200402110250.i1B2omlI002973@potamus.in.ql.org>
and subject line please disregard my RFP for logwatch
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Feb 2004 02:22:49 +0000
>From ejb@ql.org Tue Feb 10 18:22:49 2004
Return-path: <ejb@ql.org>
Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net [68.1.17.244]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Aqk1Z-0001YX-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:22:49 -0800
Received: from gwendolyn.in.ql.org ([68.100.32.28]) by lakemtao01.cox.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
id <20040211022219.ZPBN13731.lakemtao01.cox.net@gwendolyn.in.ql.org>;
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:22:19 -0500
Received: from potamus.in.ql.org (dhcp-1.in.ql.org [10.160.59.129])
by gwendolyn.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i1B2MEoI022735;
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:22:14 -0500
Received: from potamus.in.ql.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by potamus.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i1B2MLGr001694;
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:22:22 GMT
Received: (from ejb@localhost)
by potamus.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) id i1B2MJxH001689;
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:22:19 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:22:19 GMT
Message-Id: <[🔎] 200402110222.i1B2MJxH001689@potamus.in.ql.org>
From: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: RFP: logwatch -- system log analysis utility
X-Debbugs-CC: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_10
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE,X_DEBBUGS_CC
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_10
X-Spam-Level:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : logwatch
Version : 5.1
Upstream Author : Kirk Bauer <kirk@kaybee.org>
* URL or Web page : http://www.logwatch.org
* License : MIT
Description : system log analysis utility
Logwatch is a collection of perl scripts that analyze system logs and
email summaries to system administrators. It can provide a very
useful early-warning system, especially for people who may not read
through all their system logs every day.
I've been using logwatch for some time on Red Hat-based systems and
would like to use it on my Debian systems as well. If no one else is
already doing this or has a reason to object, I would like to package
this for Debian and be its maintainer (pending approval of the
upstream author). I'm quite familiar with this package, having
written at least one filter and having submitted patches upstream in
the past. If no one beats me to it, I'll probably do this over the
next several weeks as I transition my servers from Red Hat to Debian.
Once I have a lintian/linda-clean package that conforms to the Debian
Policy and that seems to work properly for my systems, I'll put this
up somewhere and request a sponsor on debian-mentors. I have not yet
done any work on this; I have merely observed that logwatch does not
appear to be present in Debian and has not apparently been requested
either.
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 232127-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Feb 2004 02:51:13 +0000
>From ejb@ql.org Tue Feb 10 18:51:13 2004
Return-path: <ejb@ql.org>
Received: from lakemtao04.cox.net [68.1.17.241]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AqkT2-00024X-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:51:13 -0800
Received: from gwendolyn.in.ql.org ([68.100.32.28]) by lakemtao04.cox.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
id <20040211025041.IERK19895.lakemtao04.cox.net@gwendolyn.in.ql.org>
for <232127-done@bugs.debian.org>;
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:50:41 -0500
Received: from potamus.in.ql.org (dhcp-1.in.ql.org [10.160.59.129])
by gwendolyn.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i1B2ofAC023071
for <232127-done@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:50:41 -0500
Received: from potamus.in.ql.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by potamus.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i1B2om1j002977;
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:50:48 GMT
Received: (from ejb@localhost)
by potamus.in.ql.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) id i1B2omlI002973;
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:50:48 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:50:48 GMT
Message-Id: <200402110250.i1B2omlI002973@potamus.in.ql.org>
From: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
To: 232127-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: please disregard my RFP for logwatch
Delivered-To: 232127-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_10
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=X_DEBBUGS_CC autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_10
X-Spam-Level:
Apparently a logwatch debian package does already exist contrary to my
previous posting. I'm a little confused though....
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/logwatch
shows information about the package, but a search for "logwatch" at
packages.debian.org turns up only fwlogwatch, hence my earlier
confusion. My local mirror, kept updated via cron with debmirror, is
also missing this package, though
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/logwatch contains the package.
logwatch is not in dists/sid/main/binary-i386/Packages in my local
mirror, but it's there in the one I just downloaded from
ftp.debian.org. Could it be that this just appeared today? I did my
searches this morning to determine whether I should do this post, and
then didn't recheck before posting a few hours later!
Anyway, please pardon the interruption.
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: