Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 12:09 AM, Michael Towers <gradgrind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can live with the situation as it is, I actually only wanted to point
out a possible inconsistency and an easy and painless way to remove it.
Well, actually - and here's the reason I'm being defensive here. You
pointed out the inconsistency on the bug tracker, and the package
maintainer said "no", so you escalated the issue to the community at
large. It's that escalation that is tiresome to me.
Sorry (really!) to be pedantic, but it was two separate issues. Firstly,
not knowing of the guideline requiring module utils to be a module
dependency I requested the removal of the dependency I requested the
removal of the dependency. Then, learning of the guideline I asked on
this list for opinions as to whether that could be changed slightly to
be (IMHO) more in line with general Arch policy.
Now, excepting all that, in a way, I agree with you to a small extent.
If the author specifically lists the utils as optional, then they're
optional. Request a reopening of the bug report linking to that
documentation.
How should one request that a bug be reopened?
But suppose the dependency in aufs was removed. Then it would be in
conflict with the module packaging guideline, as it stands. Normally in
such a situation I would open a feature request to change that line in
the guideline, but your responses here suggest that there wouldn't be
much point ...
(And where would the correct place for that be anyway? It's not a
package, so maybe not Flyspray? The discussion page? Does anyone read
that? ...)
