On 04/09/12 01:27 PM, Michael Schubert wrote:
> Dear TUs,
>
> Please merge imagej-shared [1] into imagej [2]. Both use the
> non-java-bundled version of the software as they should.
>
> Maintainer of [1] in CC.
>
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40634
> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26559
That's good. Merged!
09-05-2012, 07:50 AM
Paolo Herms
Merge request: imagej
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?
--
Paolo Herms
On Tuesday 04 September 2012 22:27:44 Michael Schubert wrote:
> Dear TUs,
>
> Please merge imagej-shared [1] into imagej [2]. Both use the
> non-java-bundled version of the software as they should.
>
> Maintainer of [1] in CC.
>
> Thanks
> Michael
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40634
> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26559
09-05-2012, 10:12 AM
Michael Schubert
Merge request: imagej
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?
Hi,
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).
On 05/09/12 03:12 AM, Michael Schubert wrote:
> 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?
>
> Hi,
>
> 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).
>
> Michael
>
> [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40634
> [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26559
>
>
(I didn't send this to the right people the first time)
When AUR packages are "merged" that means that one is deleted but its
votes and comments are carried over to the surviving package. I'm pretty
sure this is what I did, but if I mistyped "imagej-shared" then I may
have accidentally done a deletion with no merging.
For a program that is geared towards hospitals and labs, it's entirely
possible that users of it will not have permission to install plugins in
/usr, so I agree with Michael about that. However if that approach is
still buggy and Paolo's package was more reliable, I probably shouldn't
have deleted it.
Merge request: imagej
