Logcheck devel - Jan 2007 - Bug#408037: will not fix

On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:36:00PM +0000, martin f krafft wrote:
> > tags 408037 wontfix
> > thanks
> 
> > Steve, I am not happy with filtering this message on the basis that
> > is *is* an uncorrectable sector and thus a problem that should get
> > fixed.
> 
> No, smartd already sends its own emails about this by default.  If logcheck
> is going to insist on a policy of including *duplicate* notices in its own
> output, then I don't think I have any use for logcheck.
> 
> It's also not a problem that can "get fixed", short of
replacing the
> hardware.
  AIUI you're not forced to send mails with smartd, just remove the '-m
root' from your smartd.conf file, and then it'll just use syslog, and
logcheck will not repeat that information at all.

  Obviously this has the drawback to warn you at logcheck rate rather
than smartd (which performs checks more often). But I must say I agree
with Martin here, by default logcheck should not assume that you already
read smartd errors through another channel, that should be a per 'admin'
setting (IMHO).

-- 
?O?  Pierre Habouzit
??O                                                madcoder at debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20070129/84c77805/attachment.pgp

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:45:16AM +0100, Pierre HABOUZIT
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:36:00PM +0000, martin f krafft wrote:
> > > tags 408037 wontfix
> > > thanks
> > > Steve, I am not happy with filtering this message on the basis
that
> > > is *is* an uncorrectable sector and thus a problem that should
get
> > > fixed.
> > No, smartd already sends its own emails about this by default.  If
logcheck
> > is going to insist on a policy of including *duplicate* notices in its
own
> > output, then I don't think I have any use for logcheck.
> > It's also not a problem that can "get fixed", short of
replacing the
> > hardware.
>   AIUI you're not forced to send mails with smartd
No, you're not, but it's the default.

If I'm getting the mails, why should logcheck repeat the information?

If I override the default, why should logcheck send me stuff I've asked not
to get mails about?
>   Obviously this has the drawback to warn you at logcheck rate rather
> than smartd (which performs checks more often). But I must say I agree
> with Martin here, by default logcheck should not assume that you already
> read smartd errors through another channel, that should be a per
'admin'
> setting (IMHO).
Obviously it is a per-'admin' setting; the question is about which is a
reasonable default.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/