Re: [aur-general] IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate's

Reto Kaiser reto at retokaiser.com (Sun Feb 5 12:17:00 UTC 2017) > Det nimetonmaili at gmail.com (Sat Feb 4 15:57:20 UTC 2017) > > I personally prefer the flag thing > [...] > > The "-meta" thing is a little... > [...] > > The cleanest solution may very well be what we have now. > > Agree, the

Re: [aur-general] Intellij IDEA Ultimate's

Reto Kaiser reto at retokaiser.com (Thu Feb 2 19:38:33 UTC 2017) (Mailing list didn't accept my message, sorry for sending it again) I've created the "-bundled-jre" version of the IDEA package after discussion with the maintainer of the "-ultimate-edition" version ("uwolfer"). Some people want

Re: [aur-general] Intellij IDEA Ultimate's

Det said on Thu Feb 2 06:25:58 UTC 2017: Sup, Currently we have 3 non-split IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate's in the AUR (there are other ones too, but they're not duplicates): -https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/intellij-idea-ultimate-edition/ (most popular one, no bundled JRE)

[aur-general] Intellij IDEA Ultimate's

Sup, Currently we have 3 non-split IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate's in the AUR (there are other ones too, but they're not duplicates): - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/intellij-idea-ultimate-edition/ (most popular one, no bundled JRE) -

Re: [aur-general] Upstream version numbers that break pacman version comparison

On Tue Nov 22 08:07:20 UTC 2016 Bennett Piater bennett at piater.name wrote: > On 11/22/2016 08:58 AM, brent timothy saner via aur-general wrote: > > what i'd recommend is instead use 8.5 -> 8.5.1 -> 8.5.2 > > > > and then have a _pkgver= variable with the actual string, if it's needed > > later

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

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > ... Eli, if you have things to tell me that you feel you need to get off your chest, do so privately. Ranting on this thing back and forth in [aur-general] is useless, stupid and futile. My email

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

After all this unclarity (especially concerning issues 2 years ago), I think some things might need some clarity. I mean, I guess this really needs summing up... :D (also, sorry about the garbled plain text replies. Just now realized/remembered (hope so) how to do that right in Gmail) On

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

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > So, in the mailing list you give your actual reasoning, *after* giving a > cryptic comment in the AUR comments and being rejected, and rightly so, > as a crank. That reasoning is pretty obvious.

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

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:42 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: > > No. That has historically been the name. Anyone who is already familiar > with flash on Liunx is likely to use "pepper" as a search term. > Yes, but that's a non-issue because the default is to search by "Name,

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

Why hell, Since the maintainer is throwing his tantrum, I decided it would be good to ask the mailing list directly, should "pepper-flash" [1] be renamed to e.g. "flashplugin-ppapi"? This would be more in line with the official package extra/flashplugin [2] and also the