Will that actually help or are people just closing things that say "you have held broken packages" against this question no matter what they are about?
@Zanna That one would have been better if I had used punctuation correctly and not ended a statement with a question mark. But oh well. It's probably clear enough?
are we to interpret this comment to mean OP does not have a problem with suspend but only with hibernation, and their problem is not with resuming but with the system not going down in the right way? And can we therefore suggest the question may be a duplicate of this one?
@Zanna It seems to me based on that comment that the OP's problem is only with hibernation, yes. Will the answers to that other question fix the problem that hibernating only sometimes works and otherwise causes the system to lock up?
The question is unclear (and very low quality, but I don't think it is eligible to be flagged VLQ) and the answer is NAA, but is there something more going on? Is this some kind of spam?
Thanks. Should this incomprehensible wifi question be deleted quickly once closed (assuming its score drops to -3), or do you think there's a significant possibility that the OP is actually both (a) trying to ask a question about a problem they are facing and (b) willing to improve it by editing? I think the post is a spam seed, but I cannot be 100% sure.
Hmm yeah seems something fakey about it. But it can't get spam answers when it's closed so I guess we can afford to wait and see if the situation becomes clearer one way or another
We should watch this question in case it is closed. If it's closed and nobody explains why it's really a duplicate in spite of the OP's explanation, then we should reopen it, or at least edit the OP's explanation from the comments into the question.
@EliahKagan ah saw that yesterday or day before. Glad it got answered :) and yeah... I don't follow what An0n is saying in the comments but it's not a dupe
@EliahKagan afaik Mithrandir is going to talk to Bhargav Rao about putting Natty here. I will mention to Mithrandir that I think active users of the room are OK with it.
@Zanna I didn't want to jump the gun, in case anybody was unsure... but it seems we're all fine with it or that whoever's not fine with it has either not noticed or not said anything... :) :)
@BhargavRao I'm a bot that returns posts from the new answers to old questions page. The guide and the wiki for the project are present here. Use commands to view a list of commands.
I'm not totally sure they were wrong. When first posted, the question quite unambiguously said the system was Arch. In this case, I wouldn't rally worry if that possibly wrong close reason ends up as the one that gets displayed.
Interestingly, the closure banner displays the OT sub-reason we voted for first, even though only two close voters were for it and three were for the other sub-reason. I suppose that's because our votes came later?
I think this is actually quite a nice question, considering that some other major package managers (like dnf and yum) don't require users to issue separate commands for updating the local database and performing an upgrade or installation.
I don't know, but I wouldn't want the information in that answer to just disappear: it should either be kept, or converted to a comment, or converted to an edit. Since it's the OP's self-answer reporting that the problem mysteriously went away, without even a partial explanation, and there isn't enough information to give anyone else a solution or to explain the cause of the problem, we consider the question to be Off Topic -> A problem that cannot reproduced. (no repro)
So the question merits a close vote (or flag, depending on your rep) for that. I don't think it's all that important what we do with the answer, so long as the information that the problem went away is not destroyed.
My personal practice when I am reviewing and I encounter simple self-answers indicating that the problem went away mysteriously depends on whether the question has already been closed. If it hasn't been closed then I cast my close vote on the question (after checking to make sure it really is a problem that cannot be reproduced), then click Skip with the intention that others will see the review item and also vote or flag the question for closure.
If it has been closed then I click Looks OK if the answer contains information that is not otherwise present and reasonably visible either in the question or in one or more comments on the question, otherwise I click Delete (or Recommend Deletion if the post's score is 1+, since even as a 20k user I can't cast delete votes on those posts, even from review).
...This isn't like a site policy that I can cite, though. It's just my personal practice. It's subject to change if an explicit community consensus does ever actually emerge about about how to treat such posts.
Usually I only advocate skipping review items when one (a) doesn't feel like reviewing that item for whatever reason or (b) genuinely thinks others are currently in a better position review it correctly. (Back when the button was labeled "Looks Good," the temptation to skip almost everything was high.)
But there are a few short-term scenarios where I suggest everybody clicking Skip until a particular facet of the situation changes, and this is one. Another situation where I advocate this, quite different from the no-repro situation, is when the post is unambiguously actually spam and one has flagged it as such.
Yeah, I used to Skip when I knew that a particular answer was not a NAA/VLQ, but still needed to be deleted. (Like the code only answers reiterating stuff which was already mentioned in other answers posted years ago). Though we are supposed to "Looks Okay" those, I never felt like reviewing them.
