Hello, lpf-spotify-client [1] just have binaries for i386 and x86_64 , but package it self is noarch , although, thinking now, maybe makes sense possibility to install i386 package in x86_64 system .

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Btw, can we orphan lpf-skype can be orphaned ? I would say so. Also, I would remove all lpf packages, lpf itself upstream has not seen any new updates since 2015.

Hello ,  I'm completely overbooked , ok as lpf-flash-plugin,  lpf-spotify- client  will be arched, please check if package is removed from others arches (f26 and f27 )  Answers in-line.  Cheers,   On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 12:26 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2017-06-14 11:40 GMT+02:00 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.c > > om > > > wrote: > > > > > > Btw, can we orphan lpf-skype can be orphaned ? we may also update lpf-skype [2]  [2]  https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4543 > > > > I would say so. Also, I would remove all lpf packages, lpf itself > > upstream > > has not seen any new updates since 2015. > > The problem is that we don't have a long term solution for packages > we > aren't allowed to redistribute. Yes, I try maintain it , lpf it is an simply idea and code is not much complicated, anyway I'd like join it with akmods , the main idea is instead install rpms itself is use an private repo, that akmods/lpf update it with fresh rpms .  > About lpf-flash-plugin is probably to be removed also as you don't > seem to maintain and there are now updated packages for both npapi > and > ppapi. Here, my idea is do lpf-flash-player-ppapi [1] in parallel we mayremove   lpf-flash-plugin. [1]  https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 > Personally I don't see the point to maintain that in our repos, > best > is to use adobe repos directly and avoid to dedicate a maintainer > to > do a duplicate work. when upstream have repo with rpms , the point is less objective , even that we may improve rpm, for example force install freshplugin rpm package.    > About lpf-spotify (or java-oracle, or msfonts), as we don't have a > permission to redistribute, it's still needed so far. > > One could also ask spotify for a permission of redistribution. > Or we could also relax the policy as the spotify case isn't the > same > as Adobe (which explicitly forbid public redistribution) and > consider > that redistribution is permitted based on fact that none enforce > the > redistribution restriction. > (there are arch packages in AUR at least > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spotify/) > The last solution is probably to advertise the online player > instead: > http://open.spotify.com > > >