[aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware
xavion.0 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 23 00:39:07 UTC 2015
> Can we just make a poll or something and post it on the feature request for
> this? There is a lot of noise and talk and generally shitty behaviour all
> around; I (and I assume many others) are signed up to the mailing list for
> AUR related news; not petty arguments over english semantics.
If you think this thread has become sh!tty, how about you just ignore it
from now on? Also, I don't know why creating a ticket on the Bugtracker
should be a complementary requirement. My view is that a TU should have
made the necessary change immediately after reading my very first message.
I was just proving your statement:
Honestly, I think it's a joke that we even need to have this discussion.
You were also taking the focus off the main issue: that "File Request"
(only) needs to be changed at this point.
> Since when are jokes considered a waste of time?
Maybe that was another attempt at a joke. I can't really tell because I
don't find them funny (no offence). I'm just trying to get a simple
problem solved here, and I don't see the point in turning it into an
There's a difference between _understanding_ the syntactical semantics of a
> statement to _knowing_ the meaning of an English word.
> (By syntactical semantics I mean the semantics that can be derived from
> the syntax.)
I wasn't suggesting there isn't. I just assumed ESLs learn about "lodge"
being used as a verb before they learn all that other crap you were going
Does it harm you to read these two mails?
Again, I never said it does. I'm simply of the opinion that they're a
waste of time (for you as well).
You miss my point.
> If somebody interpretes a deletion request as a way of getting something,
> then he does either understand no English at all, so should get used to use
> a dictionary, or lacks the ability of setting up and running an Arch system
> Nor would he be able to use the package on another distribution, by the
No, I got that the first time. The issue I have is that two Archers in the
last fortnight have misinterpreted "File Request" with respect to my
packages alone. I highly doubt that either of them would've bothered to
create an AUR account and lodge these requests if they didn't already have
a running Arch system. They're not total morons.
I want that file too.
> Come on, just give the damn file already and let's get this over with.
FWIW, I consider that to be a fair bit funnier than the aforementioned
> I totally concur. This discussion is getting less and less productive
> with each round of emails.
Again: Don't like it? Don't read it!
On the OP's proposal though, IMHO, if such user mistakes happen often
> enough, a change is certainly warranted. If they, however, occur only
> occasionally, then probably the issue shouldn't be high priority. Free
> projects like Arch have only so much available resources, after all,
> and lengthy discussions tend to eat those resources up quite fast.
This necessary yet trivial change would take the right person only a few
minutes to implement. The fastest way to render this thread obsolete would
be to do so without further delay. The string could at least be changed to
"Make a Request" (which no-one seems to have a problem with) as an interim
More information about the aur-general