[aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 13 20:12:56 UTC 2016

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
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


More information about the aur-general mailing list