search for: giunchedi

...ndef __KLIBC__ #define __GLIBC__ 2 #define __GLIBC_MINOR__ 3 #endif but I'm not sure whether this is the right approach and/or something should be changed in klibc/glibc/dmraid thanks in advance, filippo [0] http://people.redhat.com/~heinzm/sw/dmraid/src/dmraid-1.0.0.rc9.tar.bz2 -- Filippo Giunchedi PGP key: 0x6B79D401 random quote follows: At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald Knuth --------...

Package: logcheck-database Severity: wishlist Hi! if autossh debug is enabled it logs to syslog, thus the messages go thru logcheck, messages are in this form May 19 14:02:55 sagara autossh[1909]: port set to 0, monitoring disabled so this is the ignore line ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ autossh\[[0-9]+\]: .*$ thanks, filippo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment

Package: logcheck-database Severity: wishlist Hi, the following two lines should be added either to ignore.d.server/dhcp or ignore.d.server/udhcp to ignore messages from udhcpd (other lines may be necessary) # udhcpd support ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ udhcpd\[[0-9]+\]: sending OFFER of [.0-9]+ ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ udhcpd\[[0-9]+\]: sending ACK to [.0-9]+ filippo

Package: logcheck Version: 1.3.5 Severity: minor Hi, reading logcheck source it seems that it requires nail for MAILATTACH to work, however it is not suggested/recommended. (JFTR it is debatable if nail is appropriate or something else should be used) thanks, filippo -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500,

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.3.5 Severity: normal Hi, I was having a look at logcheck and why I received a "verification failed: Temporary failure in name resolution" as a _system_ message. Turns out that since violations.d/logcheck is empty now, most of the rules in violations.ignore.d look quite useless, can you confirm? I suspect that a big part of those rules should be