[arch-general] Kernel Module Package Guidelines

[Michael Towers]

Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2007 12:41 AM, Michael Towers <gradgrind at online.de> 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!
}