Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 12:41 AM, Michael Towers <gradgrind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
but your responses here suggest that there wouldn't be
much point ...
That's not entirely true. My responses here are based more on the fact
that what you see as a problem, I see as something you _should_ solve
for yourself. I know it makes me difficult and all, but I see this
sort of stuff a lot - one user wants a change so _we_ must change for
them. Yada yada, it's tedious. In this case, I feel like you have a
problem with one package, and see the guidelines at fault, but you
could simply rebuild the package to fit your own personal guidelines.
I don't see the module itself as a problem - I solved that in about 10
minutes. I only posted here because the guideline surprised me and I had
a suggestion to bring it more in line with general Arch policy (as I
understood it). I will also not complain if my suggestion gets rejected
- I fully appreciate your sentiments.
(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? ...)
Flyspray says nothing about packages in the default category. It is
named "Arch Linux" because it is general to the distro. That Project
has sub-categories which include "Packages: Extra", "System",
"Installation" and more
Thanks! I've posted my suggestion (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8840)
and now I can shut up.
{
"> >
> How should one request that a bug be reopened?
Click "Request Re-open" button.
"
Duuuuh, thanks, Roman - I'm normally not that blind!
}
