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-flas...

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

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_<ver>.<arch>.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

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_<ver>.<arch>.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

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, around the end of 2014, where the commotion happened, was kind of aggressive. I don't actually know what the context of that was supposed to be, though. I do know that the maintainer claimed you harassed him via private emails, using multiple email addresses with names that aren't your own. You confirmed the false names, at a minimum: "pps. "Daniel Davis" is not my real name. :)" Using a false name is kind of really bizarre. I can understand people being anonymous on the internet, but why on earth would you feel the need to use a fake name?

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.)

No editing of comments, there, and they were submitted sufficiently close together (within one minute) that I suspect he didn't realize they were all submitted and none deleted. Surely you of all people would sympathize with that, having filed the original bug report!!!

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.

Multiple unsubstantiated complaints of private email harassment became more ominous with the creation of this email thread.

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.

If that many people see your comments as toxic, does that not imply the problem may indeed be you rather than everyone else? At least enough of an implication to warrant meaningful introspection about your own attitude? Of course, a conspiracy theory could account for the multiplicity of people who all feel the same way, but I don't think anyone wants to dive down that rabbit hole.

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

"No offense, but..." Yep, the single most offensively oxymoronic phrase in common English usage. ;) And that is without getting into the rather problematic idea of thinking that "because the internet" is a valid reason to tell people to get a thicker skin.

And, you are probably going to stamp this piece as "entirely toxic", [...]

Actually, I think the common complaint was "toxic in some way", not necessarily "entirely". And your previous paragraph qualifies. -- Eli Schwartz