> Dictating other people how they should write the software they work on > during their free time is not constructive.
That's ironic, considering that that's exactly what the Ubuntu devs are doing to us by refusing to implement this change. It is also not constructive to fork an entire package for a few lines of code. Especially when said lines of code don't make it in because of obscure reasons that nobody seems able to explain very well beyond "that's how we want to do it, take it or leave it". That's actually the main problem: no rational explanation for this refusal. All attempts have been rebuked in the thread above. On a side note, it's ironic to think that people sometimes wonder why there's so much code fork in the Linux world... There's a prime example of gratuitous push for a fork right here. I guess we'll have to start proposing the change to maintainers of other distro's. Don't know how much success we'll have since the upstream developer is an Ubuntu team. It looks like I'll be forced to stay away from notify-osd for my projects. For personal use I can hack the source and install a version that accepts all timeouts, but it's not viable when you have to distribute a piece of software to others as well. It's not a portable hack. -- notify-send ignores the expire timeout parameter https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
