On 12/05/2024 14:06, Muflone wrote:
Therefore, apart the browsers registration, this package offers the same content of chromium-widevine, I suppose.
Its plus is registering the same plugin in multiple browsers location.
So in the end, why don't you simply use the chromium-widevine dependency to download the library and create the needed configuration for the others browsers?
This wouldn't result in a duplicate package, a more simpler maintenance and also better a more specific task for the package.
All the rest seems not an interesting argument against the package deletion. Sorry about the late reply.
To be honest, my preference would still be to merge both packages under the "widevine" name. I'm willing to maintain such a merged package. Supporting evidence: - This package handles more browsers and more architectures than chromium-widevine. - There is a pinned remark on the chromium-widevine AUR page saying: "I'll maintain this package for a while for the other systems that use it." - chromium-widevine downloads the entire chrome browser to only extract the lib. The widevine package downloads the separately packaged lib directly from google. This is much more efficient. But, if you think this is not the way forward, that's also fine. Then please tell me what you would prefer me to do to avoid this package getting deleted. If you want me to do instead:
So in the end, why don't you simply use the chromium-widevine dependency to download the library and create the needed configuration for the others browsers?
then that's also fine by me. Best regards, Bart