[aur-general] large number of deprecated/duplicate flashplugin packages
All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or deprecated. Could someone delete these please ? http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101 Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR packages. Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like prerelease/beta/preview randomly, causing further package naming issues. (eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ? -Anish -- As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world falling apart.
On 14 July 2011 22:34, Anish Bhatt <anish@archlinux.us> wrote:
All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or deprecated. Could someone delete these please ?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101
All removed.
Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR packages. Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like prerelease/beta/preview randomly, causing further package naming issues. (eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ?
Post a comment on the packages that will be deleted, suggesting to switch to the flashplugin-beta package. After a couple of weeks, we can go ahead and delete the -prerelease packages.
Am Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:08:11 +0300 schrieb Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com>:
On 14 July 2011 22:34, Anish Bhatt <anish@archlinux.us> wrote:
All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or deprecated. Could someone delete these please ?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101
All removed.
What's about these flashplugin packages? flashplugin9 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21045) Totally outdated and most likely full of security holes. lib32-flashplugin (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15406) Seems to be identical with flashplugin from [multilib] and misses some files like the .desktop file. lib32-flashplugin10.1 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49982) Seems to be the same as lib32-flashplugin but outdated. Heiko
On 15 July 2011 02:22, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
What's about these flashplugin packages?
flashplugin9 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21045) Totally outdated and most likely full of security holes.
Quite outdated indeed; removed.
lib32-flashplugin (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15406) Seems to be identical with flashplugin from [multilib] and misses some files like the .desktop file.
That package doesn't use nspluginwrapper like the one in [multilib].
lib32-flashplugin10.1 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49982) Seems to be the same as lib32-flashplugin but outdated.
They're different versions. Maybe it should be deleted, but I'll leave it as is for the moment.
participants (3)
-
Anish Bhatt
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Heiko Baums