Le 14/02/2017 à 18:01, Florian Bruhin a écrit :

* Bruno Pagani <bruno.n.pagani@gmail.com> [2017-02-14 16:59:10 +0100]:

...

Le 08/02/2017 à 22:16, notify@aur.archlinux.org a écrit :

...

The-Compiler [1] filed a deletion request for pdf.js [2]:

Duplicate of pdfjs (without dot) which was first submitted 10 months earlier (and has packages optdepending on it)

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/The-Compiler/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pdf.js/ Indeed, but pdf.js seems like a more correct package name in fact. Could you agree on the maintainership of it, and file a merge request of pdfjs to pdf.js instead? I'd be fine either way, but [1] says:

For the sake of consistency, pkgname should match the name of the source tarball of the software: for instance, if the software is in foobar-2.5.tar.gz, use pkgname=foobar.

And the name used in their release tarballs[2] is "pdfjs".

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD [2] https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/releases/download/v1.7.225/pdfjs-1.7.225-d...

Florian

Hum, you’re right, and in fact a second look at all the Arch packages shows that only few are in .js, and those are the ones being wrong (by the way, 4 of the 6 concerned are from morealaz). I was tricked because d3.js is the first *js package from this query https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=.js, and that I thought the d3.js packaging should be a reference one given the importance of D3.js in my mind. pdf.js is now merged into pdfjs. @morealaz, can you pushed fixed version of your packages and file merge requests? Thanks. Regards, Bruno