All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or
deprecated. Could someone delete these please ?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101

Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and
had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR
packages. Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two
of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like
prerelease/beta/preview randomly, causing further package naming issues.
(eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be
seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to
consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ?
-Anish

--
As long as the music's loud enough, we won't hear the world falling apart.

On 14 July 2011 22:34, Anish Bhatt <anish@archlinux.us> wrote:
> All of these packages are either orphaned/out-of-date/duplicate or
> deprecated. Could someone delete these please ?
>
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47038
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47308
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49704
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50704
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44101

All removed.

> Also, adobe at one point had three seperate flash releases available, and
> had versioning/architecture issues that required three seperate AUR
> packages. *Their last release consolidates all these releases, rendering two
> of these packages obsolete. Adobe also tends to use adjectives like
> prerelease/beta/preview randomly, *causing further package naming issues.
> (eg, all -prerelease packages have now become -beta, when there used to be
> seperate -beta & -prerelease releases earlier). What's a good way to
> consolidate users of the three packages into the correct one ?

Post a comment on the packages that will be deleted, suggesting to
switch to the flashplugin-beta package. After a couple of weeks, we
can go ahead and delete the -prerelease packages.

On 15 July 2011 02:22, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> What's about these flashplugin packages?
>
> flashplugin9 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21045)
> Totally outdated and most likely full of security holes.

Quite outdated indeed; removed.

> lib32-flashplugin (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15406)
> Seems to be identical with flashplugin from [multilib] and misses some
> files like the .desktop file.

That package doesn't use nspluginwrapper like the one in [multilib].

> lib32-flashplugin10.1 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49982)
> Seems to be the same as lib32-flashplugin but outdated.

They're different versions. Maybe it should be deleted, but I'll leave
it as is for the moment.