Bug#251953: gnome-settings-daemon not in default PATH

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:12:57AM +0200, Marc Dequènes wrote:

 > "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org> writes:
 > 
 > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:46:35AM +0200, Marc Dequènes wrote:
 > >
 > >  > Coin, [..]
 > >
 > >  If you are going to close a bug, _provide_ a reason for closing
 > >  the bug, ok?
 > 
 > We, all did.

 No, you didn't.  _Your_ argument reduces to "upstream does it this
 way".  That doesn't cover what the original report states.

 > gnome-settings-daemon is [...] not intended for direct user run.

 Why?

 > >  say and you can keep it on the technical level, be my guest.
 > 
 > Ignore if u want.

 Mind using English that also looks like English?  You might think that
 it makes you look cool to write "u" and "r" and idiocies like that.
 What you are actually achieving is making your message harder to read.

 > U r asking capplets & applications using gnome-settings-daemon to
 > work in a way they were not designed to

 And which way would that way be?

 Did I even _mention_ capplets?

 I'm talking about regular applications.

 > Nevertheless you can't say gnome-settings-daemon is not achieving its
 > goals

 Are you even reading the original report?  Did _I_ say that the
 application is behaving wrongly?

 > other gnome applications for which it has been created are using it
 > successfully.

 Once it's running.  Yes, you are absolutely and completely right.  Now
 go read the original report.

 > And using it in a twisted manner is NOT a relevant argument for a
 > bugreport of severity important.

 Which "twisted manner"?  I'm starting it in a shell script for crying
 out loud!  What's twisted about that?

 > I closed this bug report because i am not, in any manner, going to
 > help users yelling at maintainers and being so disrespectful towards
 > seb128 and other GNOME Team member's work and opinions.

 Oh, I see, you are still hung on:

 > With all due respect, I don't care if you "strongly disagree" or
 > "slightly disagree" or whatever.

 First, I really don't see the "yelling" there.  Feel free to tell me
 where I did yell.  Otherwise that's slander and I expect an apology
 from you.

 Second, I did write "with all due respect".  If you assign a null value
 to "due" that's _your_ problem and _you_ are the one that's being
 disrespectful to all these people.  What I _did_ say was that it's
 irrelevant if Sebastien disagrees strongly or not.  To quote myself
 fully:

 > With all due respect, I don't care if you "strongly disagree" or
 > "slightly disagree" or whatever.  I'm stating that this bug affects
 > the behaviour of unrelated applications (including but not limited to
 > making them behave inconsistently with respect to other applications
 > -- an this is, by the very intention of the HIG, a severe bug) and
 > that's by _our_ definition of bug severities a critical bug.

 I did state, for the second time, the reason for tagging this bug
 critical.  If you feel offended by our definition of critical bugs
 there's really nothing I can do about it.

 Marcelo