2007/12/4, Michael Towers <gradgrind@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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? Click "Request Re-open" button. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
