Your message dated Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:12:17 +0100
with message-id <201012272212.23696.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#608098: gnome-core: revert mass migration from
-desktop-environment to -core
has caused the Debian Bug report #608098,
regarding RFP: gnome-martin-eric-racine - metapackage for Martin-Eric Racine
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
608098: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=608098
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gnome-core
Version: 2.30+7
Severity: important
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
The massive migration of dependencies from gnome-desktop-environment to
gnome-core is extremely undesirable, because it spoils the usefulness that
gnome-core used to have in pulling just enough packages to have a basic GNOME
environment. Now, instead, it pulls WAY too many packages and leaves the user
without any simple method for installing basic GNOME components.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.36-1000-generic (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fi_FI.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fi_FI.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages gnome-core depends on:
pn eog <none> (no description available)
pn gedit <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-applets <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-control-center <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-icon-theme <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-menus <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-panel <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-power-manager <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-session <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-settings-daemon <none> (no description available)
pn gnome-terminal <none> (no description available)
pn gvfs <none> (no description available)
pn metacity | mutter <none> (no description available)
pn nautilus <none> (no description available)
pn yelp <none> (no description available)
gnome-core recommends no packages.
Versions of packages gnome-core suggests:
pn gnome-desktop-environment <none> (no description available)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=N+uI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
closing the bug as its definitly pointless as wnpp and also as bug against
gnome.</janitor mode>
On Montag, 27. Dezember 2010, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > If you need a specific set of packages, please make your metapackages
> > yourself. See brdesktop-gnome for an example of such a recurrent
> > failure.
> Sorry, but am I the only one who considers this reply as pointlessly
> abrasive, inappropriate and offensive?
well, retitling the bug as Joss did is a bit on the edge of abusing the BTS to
make a point, but it's also probably still within "having fun with technology
to express an opinion", esp. given that he also gave valid reasons why he
considered this bug wontfix already in very same mail, and also in his 2nd
reply (copied to -devel).
So I'm closing this bug as this he didnt do (yet).
And while I dont like that overworked people sometimes react badly (or less
good) when people put even more load on them, it's a fact. I also dont like
that people are overworked in the first place, and thats a fact too. (It's
also a fact that things doesnt have to be that way..)
It's also a fact that humor sometimes doesnt match. Sadly.
But given the serious answers he also gave (and the retitle-joke itself) I
dont think this humor was abuse. It was a joke, which some people didnt like
and some didnt find funny. And some laughed. So what.
Personally (and in the piuparts context) I used to be way more relaxed +
cheerful replying to people who tell me that (they think) their package had
valid reasons to violate policy - but sadly over time I've become midly
annoyed and also bored, that I have to spend my time again+again to explain
why/that policy is there and also applies to this or that package...
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--- End Message ---
