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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.