That's a very unfortunate set of misunderstandings. Sorry to hear. Anyway, so hold out there and things'll get fixed probably. Especially after this post. -AT On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way > bugs are handled in Arch. > > I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about > the awesome package in community. > > The package maintainer just closes the bug, not solving it, claiming > it's upstream, and not even investigating the problem. He suggests I > ask upstream. > > Ok, I play a good citizen, I do ask upstream, we find the problem, a > sollution is found - it turns out the PKGBUILD was wrong from the > begining - but still I submit a patch to awesome so that building it > is much easier. > > I request reopening the bug .. it's a small text-area, not very > usable, so I just write "New information" .. since the bug was closed > with "You may want to ask upstream why they install those files by > default.". > > And then I get the answer: > Reason for denial: > You need to be more specific that "New information" in a reopen request... > > Now, it's not like I enjoy hanging out in the bug system opening bugs, > investigating them, hoping to improve ArchLinux's packages.. and I > don't see how I could've deserved this behaviour. > > The bug report shouldn't have been closed in the first place, since > the problem was not even solved. > > > > -- > damjan >
