[aur-general] Merge request: imagej

Michael Schubert mschu.dev at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 06:12:30 EDT 2012

On 09/05/12 09:50, Paolo Herms wrote:
> Hello,
> as I already explained to Michael Schubert, ImageJ plugins must be installed
> into some specified plugin directory to be found.
> In order to allow users manually installing plugins locally, the original
> package creates a plugin directory structure in the $HOME.
> The rational of making imagej-shared was to have a clean package without an
> error prone launch script but forcing plugins to be installed into
> /usr/share/... preferably by making a archlinux package for each plugin.
> But there are really many plugins, so this method has its inconvenients as
> well, so it doesn't seem easy to decide which one is better.
> Before just "merging" the two packages - you actually just deleted mine - did
> you make sure the imagej-plugin-* packages continue working?


Sorry about the confusion, but I disagree with your reasoning.

The original package [1] with the launcher enables users to install 
plugins both in the /usr/share, as well as in the plugin directory that 
is in $HOME. This has the advantage that users on systems where they do 
not have root access can install plugins there as well, obviously. 
However, the /usr/share plugins directory is still working perfectly, 
making [1] provide exactly the same capabilties as [2] and thus one 
being redundant.

If you feel strongly about this, you could take of course over the 
original imagej [1] package and maintain this one. It was not my 
intention to take a package away from you, but the AUR guidelines 
clearly say that no two packages should provide the same software 
(unless there is a good reason for it).



More information about the aur-general mailing list