[arch-general] Kernel Module Package Guidelines

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Tue Dec 4 11:48:41 EST 2007

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

More information about the arch-general mailing list