From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] minor update to rule add/delete messages (ver 2)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:19:39 -0500
Message-ID: <200612150619.39953.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <200612141148.47824.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<1166143448.8203.196.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1166143448.8203.196.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Thursday 14 December 2006 19:44, Eric Paris wrote:
> Would you mind explaining why we had to drop the chuck from the original
> patch to auditfilter.c which had:

After looking at the message, it is a summary message rather than individual 
messages for each change. So, to add the key field which may be different for 
each rule that contains that path would involve a larger re-write so. I  
wasn't sure that its worth it.

-Steve