2007/12/4, Michael Towers <gradgrind@online.de>:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 12:09 AM, Michael Towers <gradgrind@online.de> 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)