[aur-general] [aur-dev] [PRQ#4382] Deletion Request for b43-firmware

[Mark Weiman]

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 11:39 +1100, Xavion wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

That's one of the functions of the bug tracker, to report bugs and make
enhancement suggestions.  On the bug tracker, there's even a "General
Gripe" task type that this would be probably best for.

Here's a link to creating a task for aurweb: https://bugs.archlinux.org
/newtask/proj2

> 
> 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
> elaborate joke.
> 
> 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
> on about.
> 
> 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
> > completely.
> > Nor would he be able to use the package on another distribution, by
> > the
> > way.
> 
> 
> 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.

They may have set up an Arch Linux system, but that doesn't mean they
understand how Arch Linux's build system works or even how to use git
to download the PKGBUILD or click a link that has the word download in
it.

> 
> 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
> jokes.
> 
> 
> > 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
> measure.

I think all that can be said about this issue has been said and with
that, we should not entertain this issue here anymore.

Mark Weiman