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 s
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 w
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
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)
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
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.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> 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"?
>
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 j
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-supp
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 exp
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 deve
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
>
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-
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
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.
15 matches
Mail list logo
