On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> So, in the mailing list you give your actual reasoning, *after* giving a
> cryptic comment in the AUR comments and being rejected, and rightly so,
> as a crank.
That reasoning is pretty obvious.
I have no opinion about the package itself (I certainly do not see the
> apparent obviousness of your position)
I don't understand what didn't you understand? I'll repeat. In [extra] we
have "flashplugin". In AUR we have "pepper-flash". The difference is that
of only NPAPI/PPAPI. The source name of the thing is
"flash_player_ppapi_linux_<ver>.<arch>.tar.gz", which would be more in line
with the "official" "flashplugin" naming.
but purely regarding your
> behavior, I desperately want you to remain unhappy.
>
Funny. To my mind it was Scimmia giving the "behavior" (which has actually
been going on for quite a good while), but we are in fact allowed to have
completely different opinions.
For instance, if you don't want to have it renamed, as per disagreeing with
my arguments or otherwise, that's fine, but an AUR package not even
maintained by me will have zero to do with happiness in my life. :)
Det
