[aur-general] Merge request: imagej
mschu.dev at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 06:12:30 EDT 2012
On 09/05/12 09:50, Paolo Herms wrote:
> 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  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  provide exactly the same capabilties as  and thus one
If you feel strongly about this, you could take of course over the
original imagej  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