Difference between revisions of "Talk:Browser plugins"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(acroread no longer in repo (demoted to AUR - redistribution rights issue))
(acroread no longer in repo (demoted to AUR - redistribution rights issue))
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
I feel the instructions should be edited to reflect this but I don't personally have the necessary 'bottle' to just go in there and stomp over someone's hard work.
 
I feel the instructions should be edited to reflect this but I don't personally have the necessary 'bottle' to just go in there and stomp over someone's hard work.
 +
 +
:: I do :) --[[User:Xiol|Xiol]] 06:24, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:24, 22 August 2008

This article's title is TOO SPECIFIC. It should be changed depending on article's scope. --foxbunny 10:17, 17 November 2006 (PST)

I dont think that being "too specific" is the problem (see, for example, the Installing_VMware_Server_on_Arch64 article that i authored. I think that's definitely worthy of a single article by itself). It's more of a case of the subject being too "trivial", or too "easy" to be worthy of an article by itself. And so in that sense you're right after all. --jf 00:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the title should be changed to include 'java', as people wouldn't know that java is included too. Apart from that, I think the article perfectly deserves a page for itself.

acroread no longer in repo (demoted to AUR - redistribution rights issue)

I came to this page and tried to follow the instructions and they failed.

The acroread component is not in the repo (it used to be !!) but a quick search of the AUR revealed why. It seems the acrobat reader licence denies redistribution rights (what a surprise) and so the acroread package cannot ever be promoted to a repository.

I feel the instructions should be edited to reflect this but I don't personally have the necessary 'bottle' to just go in there and stomp over someone's hard work.

I do :) --Xiol 06:24, 22 August 2008 (EDT)