Apologies if this is misformatted, and I hope it works; I didn't expect to be responding and am working in the system optimized for readability over composition. I subscribed to this list just last night in hopes of gaining better visibility into the tools that I use. I have, and I think that I should report my findings. This thread has convinced me to, first, unsubscribe from this list immediately, because the information isn't worth exposure to this kind of toxicity, and second, start moving away from Arch, because I can't trust it to ship good code. The immediate response and a good bit of the followup was acutely hostile to both the reporting user and to the ability of this community to build good software. It argues to me that I cannot trust Arch to comprehend a world outside its little bubble, think about its users, acknowledge possible bugs that aren't instantly obvious to the Arch staff, cause issues to be upstreamed, or maintain a climate of discussion that is conducive to discussing problems and fixing them. Evaporative cooling of group beliefs ensures that honesty-brutality culture inevitably spirals into a festering close-minded pit that cannot accept outside contributions or think of the bigger picture. Maintaining the free flow of information is important, but it must be done in the context of the larger community - a tiny walled-off group can communicate as freely as it wants inside itself, but if nothing goes over the wall there might as well be no free flow at all. Even if the original report was not flawless, even if it was a repeat, even if it was sent to the right people, hostile repression was not the correct response. If nothing else, the fact that it's a repeat should be demonstrated and more deeply evaluated. This time it ended up working out, but if this is representative of the Arch community I can't trust it to handle other bugs. How many more severe issues are hiding in Arch, or in upstream packages, because the original reporter was already having a bad day and just gave up? Because people aren't emotionless robots and a horrible thread like this stressed someone out enough to cause an error? Because someone jumped to an incorrect conclusion and shut down discussion prematurely? Answer: Too many for my liking. -- Saul Reynolds-Haertle