control: reassign -1 logcheck-database thanks (this is mostly about logcheck-database)
On Fri, 3 May 2024, 09:39 Francesco Potortì, <poto...@isti.cnr.it> wrote: > > > Starting maybe a couple years ago, logcheck spits an amount of stuff that > has now become unamnageable. logcheck-database was mostly dormant sround that time. im hoping to improve that, but it is a big task and needs some wider improvements. So: please bear with it! While in the beginning logs were relevant to the system, which is what I > want, now any bug in a user-level daemon writing info to the syslog or to > the systemsctl thing makes havoc. i sympathise however: - a bug in a daemon should ideally be reported and fixed in the daemon - this may include logging "too much" -- i would suggest discussing with upstream as they may be open to improvements - you didnt give any examples so not sure how anyone can help you I had many email tens of megabytes long. (there's already a request to split the report if it is long) In the last month, reports have been completely useless to me as they are > filled with useless things and I am busy adding local rules to remove them > > Now I have reached a point where its usefulness is negative: I spend more > time adding rules than it is worth for me getting the info. > i sympathise - but writing local rules is always going to be needed. i think we can do much better than what we have, but realistically it is hard to do in this way. If.you wanted to chamge the world, get upstream authors to agree some standard where messges are easier to identify as routine and then logcheck could more easily ignore that. .... i wont hold my breath for thay > One cure would be to have logcheck ignore user-level messages, and only > care about system-level ones. Is that possible? > maybe it is possible - how do you define "system-level message"?
