Is it just me, or is there a reason for it?

[C de-Avillez]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:33:46 +0100
R Kimber <richardkimber at btinternet.com> wrote:

> But I don't see that as the choice.  Rather, either remove the
> uninformative stuff altogether, 

Generically speaking my answer would be no. For the udev message: it
is pointing to a deprecated usage, that has to be adjusted. It is
important for this type of message to keep on being issued until the
changes are made. On the 'texpire'... I have no idea what this
programme does, so I will not comment.

Finally, for the 'audit' message -- most definitely stays.

> or put more effort into creating the
> necessary regular expressions that will allow logcheck to filter
> them out.

This would be something for the logchecker hackers, or users. If it
is a good change, upstream will accept and include the changes into
logchecker. You could do it, and propose your changes upstream.

But, right now, all  I can see points to a not-enough-adjusted
logchecker configuration on your side.


-- 
C de-Avillez
IRC: hggdh

This email (and any attachments) is digitally signed using GNUpg
(http://gnupg.org). The public key is available at http://pgp.mit.edu.
The key Id is 0xD3133E56.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20100813/08ac7909/attachment.sig>