https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178154 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178154#c13 Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |SHIP_STOPPER? --- Comment #13 from Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.com> --- Sorry, I should've been clearer on my needinfo. (In reply to Thorsten Kukuk from comment #11)

If other log files (which?) should be owned by the audit group, the name of the group "audit" would be wrong and we need something better.

Yes, this was what was actually being discussed; create a generic ("logaccess", "logging", whatever) group to provide such role for log files.

But I don't see a valid usecase for other log files.

Agreed, and now I'm thinking as follows: 1. If we create an "audit" group for audit.log access: this will be the only log file that has such behaviour, and might require future adjustments if other log files demands the same behaviour. Not sure if this justifies such change to fit a very specific use case. 2. If we create a "logging" group for generic log access: user might want the group access to one log file, but not another, so they would still have to manually tweak for each use case -- i.e. trouble is similar as current state. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.