Logcheck devel - Jan 2005 - logcheck-database -- volatile?

A new archive was announced for packages that have need for frequent changes
[see below].  In theory, we should not have to update logcheck rules in
Sarge, because we know that it's packages, with the exception of security
updates will remain constant.

This does not change the fact that we may wish to update the database on
sarge <:

Any thoughts?

-Todd

----- Forwarded message from Andreas Barth <aba at not.so.argh.org> -----

Old-Return-Path: <aba at not.so.argh.org>
X-Original-To: debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org
From: Andreas Barth <aba at not.so.argh.org>
To: debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org
Subject: Status of project debian-volatile
Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Barth <aba at not.so.argh.org>,
	debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
X-Debian-Message: Signature check passed for Debian member
X-Rc-Spam: 2005-01-14_01
Resent-Message-ID: <7ZM6M.A.LqH.hrs8BB at murphy>
Resent-From: debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org> 
List-Id: <debian-devel-announce.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-devel-announce-request at
lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-announce-request at
lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-announce-request at
lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/>
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-announce-request at lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:51:29 -0600 (CST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on 
	caffeine.rapidpacket.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
	version=3.0.2

Hello, world,

some packages aim at fast moving targets like spam filtering and virus
scanning, and even using methods like updating virus patterns by a
daemon on the local system, this doesn't really work for the full time
of a stable release.  There have been discussion about how to allow system
administrators to update their systems in a nice, consistent way without
getting the drawbacks of using unstable, even without getting the drawback
for the selected packages.  A new project called debian-volatile has been
created to achieve this.  The status of debian-volatile is as follows.

For getting some debian-volatile support up, and for getting experience how
it works, and what the issues are, volatile.debian.net has been created. A
first package, whois, has already been accepted into the debian-volatile 
section for woody.  We expect that debian-volatile will reach a full
working status once sarge is released, but of course, we aim that it is 
useable any time (and we believe it is).  We are interessted about
feedback, especially from normal users of Debian.  The canonical contact
address for any issues with debian-volatile is
debian-volatile at volatile.debian.net; however, looking at the web page at
http://volatile.debian.net before might reduce our work load.

Our next steps are to create a browseable list of updates, like we have for
security.  Apart from that, identifying packages worth and appropriate for
inclusion into volatile is necessary.

If you are more interessted in debian-volatile, you can join our mailing list
and also reach us at #debian-volatile on irc.debian.org.

For the list of mirrors, please see http://volatile.debian.net/mirrors.html


Cheers,
Andi



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
[   Todd J. Troxell                                         ,''`.
      Student, Debian GNU/Linux Developer, SysAdmin, Geek  : :' :
      http://debian.org || http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat    `. `' 
                                                             `-     ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20050122/cb2b9863/attachment.pgp

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Todd Troxell wrote:
> A new archive was announced for packages that have need for frequent
changes
> [see below].  In theory, we should not have to update logcheck rules in
> Sarge, because we know that it's packages, with the exception of
security
> updates will remain constant.
> 
> This does not change the fact that we may wish to update the database on
> sarge <:
> 
> Any thoughts?
concerning logservers we made an error at early stage to remove rules
concerning woody, nowadays i would be more cautious regarding that.
(perhaps not at level workstation, but cron had big logging changes 
for example).

but yes it could help logservers in mixed env (sage + edge),
if we add new rule and don't remove the old ones.

maks

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:26:37PM -0500, Todd Troxell muttered these
words:
> A new archive was announced for packages that have need for frequent
changes
> [see below].  In theory, we should not have to update logcheck rules in
> Sarge, because we know that it's packages, with the exception of
security
> updates will remain constant.
> 
> This does not change the fact that we may wish to update the database on
> sarge <:
IMO, I think uploads of logcheck-database to volatile should only be
made when other additions, (read: packages), to volatile dictate. For
example, if a new version of spamassassin is uploaded to volatile and
new regexs are need, or existing ones must change in order to maintain
consistent behavior with what is in stable.

Likewise, I think all other bugfixes/enhancements should be pushed 
through the normal process for updates to stable.

-- 
Eric Evans
eevans at sym-link.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20050204/2cdedc7a/attachment.pgp