Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Det via aur-general]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
 wrote:
> ...

Eli, if you have things to tell me that you feel you need to get off
your chest, do so privately.

Ranting on this thing back and forth in [aur-general] is useless,
stupid and futile.

My email is right there.

 Det

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 11/14/2016 05:51 AM, Det via aur-general wrote:
> I'm sorry but that's bogus. Not only did I ask repeatedly because I
> wanted to get an answer, but since he gave me _none_, I asked the
> mailing list instead.

Wanting to get an answer is not inherently a problem. It does, however,
show that you care. Not that caring about other AUR packages is a
problem either, but it does go to show that you won't be completely
oblivious to the result.

Your going into attack mode was the problem. And if you don't see how
your actions came across as that, then that is a problem.

(I will humor you by giving you the benefit of the doubt and running
with the theory that you didn't intend to come across that way.)

> That thing about "fighting" and "peeling pressure", I'm sorry, is
> simply over-sensitive and ridiculous.

Sure looks like fighting to me.

You wanted to know why it was named one thing rather than another, he
said "because", which is certainly a valid reason *for a status quo*,
considering that you didn't go to any effort to try justifying why the
name surprised you or made you question it in any way.

You asked him to "please rename", continued to NOT give a reason, and he
told you to stop asking. It is not his responsibility to explain to you
why you need to justify your opinions.

You repeated your request, and added "Or give a reason as to why not
like a proper maintainer."
But no part of being a proper maintainer includes giving reasons for
anything other than, perhaps, why a package does not conform to the AUR
rules. Are you insinuating that?

That is when it started getting personal. And you eventually accused him
of sulking (I can say many things about Scimmia, and we have had our
disagreements as well, but he doesn't strike me as one to "sulk"!) and
said you would "ask the mailing list". Ask them what:
Why he wants that name?
Or
Whether we agree that he should have to rename it?

The former makes no sense, because once again, he needs no reason to
maintain a status quo, and it is your obligation when going against a
status quo to provide a reason (any reason) for the change.

The latter makes a lot of sense in context. Although once on the mailing
list you phrased it as a question, I used "logic" and "intuition" to
conclude that that what you really wanted was for us to agree with you
so you could go back to demanding it be changed.

Since you provided no reasons in the AUR comments, and you did provide
reasons on the mailing list, it would seem that we are more deserving of
reasons than he is. (At least, if you felt the need to explain to us,
presumably we wouldn't already know. So why should he know your reasons
any more than we did?)

Hence peer pressure. I don't know why you would prefer peer pressure
over explaining yourself to Scimmia *directly* but there it is...

> First of all, many people seem to _appreciate_ the fact that I keep
> their package up-to-date in a very consistent manner (of which I have
> a lot, as you implied) and every now and then they thank me. Makes me
> happyface.
> 
> Yes, I maintain 107 packages, most of which are split or -git, so in
> essence require no extra work. But... if the argument is that I care
> too much about the general health of AUR... yes, I just don't know at
> which point does this become a such a major concern, if those apparent
> quote-unquote-toxic comments of mine are the worst that can happen
> (see 2nd reply on that).

I have no problem with you maintaining packages, and I am sure people
are very appreciative.
The fact that you "care so much about the general health of the AUR" to
the extent that, when your personal opinions on how things should be
done are not met, you feel the need to cross the line from suggestions
to harassment (however minor) is less okay, and that is what people mean
by toxic.

Surely you are *capable* of both "caring about the general health of the
AUR" and "respecting other maintainers' ability to care about the
general health of the AUR".

> And about that vuze thing you decided to dig up..., well, quick story,
> over 2 years ago, I flagged the then "vuze-plugin-i2p" out-of-date,
> because the project was no longer maintained. I posted 3 comments
> about it to try and give the direct link to the new one (you couldn't
> edit comments back then, of which by the way, due to my control mania,
> I finally created a feature request back in April 2013 [1]).

And thank you for that, as the ability to edit comments is very useful.
But that is somewhat irrelevant...

> This "mildly p*ssed" the maintainer, causing him to create a bug
> report [2] where falconindy also joined in (apparently still angry at
> me over a comment that he never admits his mistakes), and the two
> concluded that I'm 1) "not a very well-socialized individual", and 2)
> "need a thourough[sic] dusting in public". Asked both in private, but
> apparently silence had landed in.

Not counting your *first* post to aur/vuze (in 2011)... your first post
there, 

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Det via aur-general]

After all this unclarity (especially concerning issues 2 years ago), I
think some things might need some clarity. I mean, I guess this really
needs summing up... :D

(also, sorry about the garbled plain text replies. Just now
realized/remembered (hope so) how to do that right in Gmail)

On 2016-11-13 21:12, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> Well, you initially complained about it on 2016-09-14, started nudging
> again on 2016-11-02 and 2016-11-12, and on the last occasion proceeded
> to get into an internet fight over it (once your nudnik behavior finally
> agitated a response to go away) then attempted to appeal to peer
> pressure by raising support for your position on the mailing list, using
> a stratagem that includes accusations such as "the maintainer is
> throwing his tantrum"...

I'm sorry but that's bogus. Not only did I ask repeatedly because I
wanted to get an answer, but since he gave me _none_, I asked the
mailing list instead.

That thing about "fighting" and "peeling pressure", I'm sorry, is
simply over-sensitive and ridiculous.

On 2016-11-13 21:12, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> At least two people insinuated that you may have a "collecting mania"
> and/or a "control mania" for AUR packages (cf. "[aur-general] Should TUs
> tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?", Feb. 2016)[1] which would
> lend weight to the idea that your irrational investment in this is not
> my imagination.

First of all, many people seem to _appreciate_ the fact that I keep
their package up-to-date in a very consistent manner (of which I have
a lot, as you implied) and every now and then they thank me. Makes me
happyface.

Yes, I maintain 107 packages, most of which are split or -git, so in
essence require no extra work. But... if the argument is that I care
too much about the general health of AUR... yes, I just don't know at
which point does this become a such a major concern, if those apparent
quote-unquote-toxic comments of mine are the worst that can happen
(see 2nd reply on that).

And about that vuze thing you decided to dig up..., well, quick story,
over 2 years ago, I flagged the then "vuze-plugin-i2p" out-of-date,
because the project was no longer maintained. I posted 3 comments
about it to try and give the direct link to the new one (you couldn't
edit comments back then, of which by the way, due to my control mania,
I finally created a feature request back in April 2013 [1]).

This "mildly p*ssed" the maintainer, causing him to create a bug
report [2] where falconindy also joined in (apparently still angry at
me over a comment that he never admits his mistakes), and the two
concluded that I'm 1) "not a very well-socialized individual", and 2)
"need a thourough[sic] dusting in public". Asked both in private, but
apparently silence had landed in.

Second time, slightly over a year ago (July 2015), I suggested a fix
of the broken homepage URL in "vuze" to the maintainer (same guy). [3]
Well, again, he was incredibly upset by it, calling me an "antisocial
self" and actually claiming that I "insulted" him in the past. He then
spammed 5 comments of a message beginning with "Hahahaha!" and was
never heard from again. (By me, until the apparent mailing list thread
this year.)

The other person you linked unfortunately didn't (AFAIK) give any
names of packages that I had apparently been flagging so can't comment
on that.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
 wrote:
> Det, TLDR, a rename is not going to happen. Almost every message or
> comment from you is toxic in some way and you can be sure that implying
> that member of the project is "throwing a tantrum" after your pointless
> AUR comments is not going to bring you anywhere.

Thank-you very much, but not only do I see zero "toxicity" or
"pointlessness" in my comments, but I'll just conclude this thing
suggesting that maybe, possibly you guys may simply need a slightly
thicker skin.

Really, no offense, no intent to hurt anyone's feelings, but how long
have you guys been using the internet?

And, you are probably going to stamp this piece as "entirely toxic",
but what's important is that the message is out there... but I'm glad
I asked, for now I finally got some real arguments about what I was
originally asking. :D

Thanks for everyone's contributions.

[1] = https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/34690
[2] = https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42481
[3] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vuze/?comments=all

  Det
(_that_ maniac)

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-11-13 21:12, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 02:01 PM, Det via aur-general wrote:
>> That reasoning is pretty obvious.
> 
> Debatable... but thanks for actually (finally) spelling out your reasons
> in your initial post here, rather than simply assuming everyone thinks
> the way you do.
> 
> I could think of a bunch of arbitrary names, not just pepper-flash or
> flashlugin-ppapi.
> Maybe we should call it "googles-version-of-flash" (for the sake of
> sheer verbosity), or "chromium-flash" (because it is chrome-specific).
> 
>> 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_..tar.gz", which would be more in line
>> with the "official" "flashplugin" naming.
> 
> What I don't understand is why that actually matters? There is no
> requirement that a pkgname should be based on the source url, and on the
> contrary, packages should be named something which users will recognize,
> regardless of what potentially retarded source filename is used by
> upstream (and they can get pretty retarded).
> 
> pepper flash is well-known, comparatively few people know the difference
> between npapi and ppapi. I can assure you I wouldn't dream searching for
> your recommended name.
> 
> If I was going to complain about anything, I would complain that "users
> aren't going to recognize 'ppapi', please consider renaming the package
> to something more memorable like 'pepper-flash'". And if the maintainer
> didn't like my explicitly stated reasoning, I would respect his opinion
> on account of he, not I, was the one who put effort into publishing and
> maintaining the package.
> Because at the end of the day, he, as the maintainer, is trusted to have
> the good judgment to name his package something sensible, and unless he
> is actually breaking the rules of the AUR, it is incredibly rude to pick
> a fight with him over it (as you did).
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't think you want me to talk about the things I have seen said
> about your longstanding behavior when it comes to other peoples' AUR
> packages. (But see below, since you asked...)
> 
> Suffice it to say, Scimmia is officially affiliated with the Arch Linux
> project, which implies that people trust his judgment. A lot. In fact, a
> lot more than you and I, who are simply random users.
> 
>> 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. :)
> 
> Well, you initially complained about it on 2016-09-14, started nudging
> again on 2016-11-02 and 2016-11-12, and on the last occasion proceeded
> to get into an internet fight over it (once your nudnik behavior finally
> agitated a response to go away) then attempted to appeal to peer
> pressure by raising support for your position on the mailing list, using
> a stratagem that includes accusations such as "the maintainer is
> throwing his tantrum"...
> 
> I would venture to say that yes, you are irrationally invested in the
> outcome of your arguments.
> I cannot say to what precise degree that may affect your life, but I can
> certainly theorize that that degree will be non-zero.
> 
> At least two people insinuated that you may have a "collecting mania"
> and/or a "control mania" for AUR packages (cf. "[aur-general] Should TUs
> tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?", Feb. 2016)[1] which would
> lend weight to the idea that your irrational investment in this is not
> my imagination.
> 

This message pretty much outlines what would I write if I weren't so
lazy. (Also my English is surely worse than Eli's.)

Det, TLDR, a rename is not going to happen. Almost every message or
comment from you is toxic in some way and you can be sure that implying
that member of the project is "throwing a tantrum" after your pointless
AUR comments is not going to bring you anywhere.

Bartłomiej



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[DJ Lucas]

On 11/13/2016 02:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:


IMO it would be better to drop all flashplayer related packages from
AUR, as well as from the official repositories.


While I agree with you on principal, it's an unrealistic expectation. 
You can't expect a small business, who paid $1000s to a developer to 
have a web application made, one that still works well BTW, to again pay 
$$ to migrate this to html5 with no perceived benefit as flash player is 
still available and supported. When it finally breaks, sure. 
Unfortunately, (un)certain inevitability is a hard sell to the brass.


--DJ

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:12:56 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>I could think of a bunch of arbitrary names, not just pepper-flash or
>flashlugin-ppapi.

Since "PPAPI" is for "pepper plugin application programming interface"
it makes sense to stay with "pepper" and adding "flash" is useful,
because it explains, that it is related to the Macromedia/Adobe thingy.
"pepper-flash" makes sense.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:33:26 +0200, Det via aur-general wrote:
>"flashplugin-ppapi"

Makes no sense, since it means "flashplugin-pepperpluginapi". Why
mentioning two times "plugin"? "flashplugin-ppapi" corrected would be
"flashpplugin-api".

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:45:42 -0600, WebDawg via aur-general wrote:
>IMO people still need flash to do stuff so I do not know why you would
>remove it.  While most of us still may hate flash they have decided to
>support it again:
>http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/09/adobe-announced-will-restart-support-flash-linux

Hi,

I'm not serious about removing it from repositories, but I'm serious
against Adobe. If people want to install it from a repository, they
should get it from a repo and install it. If I pay for a book, I don't
want to get some meta data, sign up some Adobe crap, before I get the
book I already pay. Ok, this Adobe issue is not related to flashplayer.
In regards to falshplayer, it causes issues for users of many platforms
and quasi everything provided by flashplayer could be provided without
flashplayer. So even if a user should love Adobe, there's no sane
argument pro flashplayer. Unfortunately flashplayer is a living dead.
If users would leave it alone, it wouldn't be continued. Flashplayer is
against everything from libre to security, at least FLOSS users expect
from software. Sometimes FLOSS users might be willing to go without
libre and/or security, if software provides something really useful,
more or less unsubstitutable. Flashplayer is neither useful, nor
unsubstitutable. Who cares if Adobe supports it today? Flashplayer is
crap and even if it would be something good, they despotic could decide
that they will drop support tomorrow. Since years I read at least one
request regarding flashplayer a month on a Linux mailing list.
"Something absolutely essential for the office work requires the latest
Adobe flashplayer", just nobody ever provided more information about
this top secret essential for the office work, such as a link.

Regards,
Ralf

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 11/13/2016 02:01 PM, Det via aur-general wrote:
> That reasoning is pretty obvious.

Debatable... but thanks for actually (finally) spelling out your reasons
in your initial post here, rather than simply assuming everyone thinks
the way you do.

I could think of a bunch of arbitrary names, not just pepper-flash or
flashlugin-ppapi.
Maybe we should call it "googles-version-of-flash" (for the sake of
sheer verbosity), or "chromium-flash" (because it is chrome-specific).

> 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_..tar.gz", which would be more in line
> with the "official" "flashplugin" naming.

What I don't understand is why that actually matters? There is no
requirement that a pkgname should be based on the source url, and on the
contrary, packages should be named something which users will recognize,
regardless of what potentially retarded source filename is used by
upstream (and they can get pretty retarded).

pepper flash is well-known, comparatively few people know the difference
between npapi and ppapi. I can assure you I wouldn't dream searching for
your recommended name.

If I was going to complain about anything, I would complain that "users
aren't going to recognize 'ppapi', please consider renaming the package
to something more memorable like 'pepper-flash'". And if the maintainer
didn't like my explicitly stated reasoning, I would respect his opinion
on account of he, not I, was the one who put effort into publishing and
maintaining the package.
Because at the end of the day, he, as the maintainer, is trusted to have
the good judgment to name his package something sensible, and unless he
is actually breaking the rules of the AUR, it is incredibly rude to pick
a fight with him over it (as you did).

> 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.

I don't think you want me to talk about the things I have seen said
about your longstanding behavior when it comes to other peoples' AUR
packages. (But see below, since you asked...)

Suffice it to say, Scimmia is officially affiliated with the Arch Linux
project, which implies that people trust his judgment. A lot. In fact, a
lot more than you and I, who are simply random users.

> 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. :)

Well, you initially complained about it on 2016-09-14, started nudging
again on 2016-11-02 and 2016-11-12, and on the last occasion proceeded
to get into an internet fight over it (once your nudnik behavior finally
agitated a response to go away) then attempted to appeal to peer
pressure by raising support for your position on the mailing list, using
a stratagem that includes accusations such as "the maintainer is
throwing his tantrum"...

I would venture to say that yes, you are irrationally invested in the
outcome of your arguments.
I cannot say to what precise degree that may affect your life, but I can
certainly theorize that that degree will be non-zero.

At least two people insinuated that you may have a "collecting mania"
and/or a "control mania" for AUR packages (cf. "[aur-general] Should TUs
tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?", Feb. 2016)[1] which would
lend weight to the idea that your irrational investment in this is not
my imagination.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

[1]
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032015.html

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Det via aur-general]

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_..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

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 11/13/2016 03:33 AM, Det via aur-general wrote:
> Why hell,
> 
> Since the maintainer is throwing his tantrum, I decided it would be good 
> to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be renamed 
> to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"?
> 
> This would be more in line with the official package extra/flashplugin 
> [2] and also the source URL of the thing itself.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> [1] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pepper-flash/
> 
> [2] = https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/flashplugin/
> 
>  Det
> 

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.

And now you will sling mud at the pepper-flash maintainer.

I have no opinion about the package itself (I certainly do not see the
apparent obviousness of your position), but purely regarding your
behavior, I desperately want you to remain unhappy.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Det via aur-general]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:42 AM, DJ Lucas  wrote:
>
> No. That has historically been the name. Anyone who is already familiar
> with flash on Liunx is likely to use "pepper" as a search term.
>
Yes, but that's a non-issue because the default is to search by "Name,
Description". Same with (Oracle) JDK.

Coincidentally, searching for "chromium-pepper-flash" (provides) using a
> keyword search in AUR Web does not give any results. I would have suggested
> requesting another provides as a compromise, but it seems that doesn't work
> as expected. Should it?

I thought this was fixed way back in 4.1.0?:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43157

Regression?

 Det

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[DJ Lucas]

On 11/13/2016 02:33 AM, Det via aur-general wrote:

I decided it would be good
to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be renamed
to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"?


No. That has historically been the name. Anyone who is already familiar 
with flash on Liunx is likely to use "pepper" as a search term.


Coincidentally, searching for "chromium-pepper-flash" (provides) using a 
keyword search in AUR Web does not give any results. I would have 
suggested requesting another provides as a compromise, but it seems that 
doesn't work as expected. Should it?


--DJ

Re: [aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:33:26 +0200, Det via aur-general wrote:
>Since the maintainer is throwing his tantrum, I decided it would be
>good to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be
>renamed to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"?

People who still want to contribute on the bad thing that websites
requiring flash won't die out most likely would search for a
"pepperflash" PKGBUILD, since "pepperflash" is the well known name for
it. So yes, please rename it, perhaps some never heard about "PPAPI"
and "NPAPI", don't understand what "flashplugin-ppapi" does provide,
don't install it and the chance that we are in at the death of the last
website requiring flashplayer does increase, because less people are
willing or able to install flashplayer.

IMO it would be better to drop all flashplayer related packages from
AUR, as well as from the official repositories.

:p
Ralf

[aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Det via aur-general]

Why hell,

Since the maintainer is throwing his tantrum, I decided it would be good 
to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be renamed 
to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"?


This would be more in line with the official package extra/flashplugin 
[2] and also the source URL of the thing itself.


What do you think?

[1] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pepper-flash/

[2] = https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/flashplugin/

Det