is this message necessary?

[Linda Knippers]

I just noticed the message is similarly vague when system call
rules are removed.  It just says "removed an audit rule".

-- ljk

Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 18:02, Linda Knippers wrote:
> 
>>I'm wondering about the usefulness of this message since it doesn't
>>identify the watch that's being removed.
>  
> This denotes that a configuration change has occurred. This is needed.
> 
>>If we need this message, shouldn't it identify the watch that's being
>>removed?  
> 
> That would be nice. In the new file system audit code, maybe we can add the 
> file name?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve
> 
> --
> Linux-audit mailing list
> Linux-audit at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
>