Arch Linux User Repository

lol, thanks tmoore, i saw there is a separate plex-pass package and btw its fine to be a freeloader, best things in life are free :-) alucryd - please un-flag if you can.

Yea, this isn't the plex-pass version.. This is for us freeloaders :)

i have noticed that 0.9.12.2 is out, this is plex-pass version though, so not sure it's applicable to this package, if it isn't then please feel free to un-flag this.

:) lol good.

Yea, we're cool tmoore :-)

tmoore: Already chilled out. I got a wrong first impression that triggered my all-time reflexes, but now that we can understand each others out, everything is fine :)

I do know that many use hacks to various ends, but as that cannot happen in the official repos, I tend to not do it in the AUR as well. Now that I know where the disaster comes from, yes I can only agree that it is a headache, and I'm glad you didn't throw that away for the sake of just throwing it. TBH I'm in the same situation as you. I chose to run plex as another user as well, which also includes my torrent user.

Guys, just chill out some. alucryd does this on his own time and doesn't get paid for it. I used to do it too.. It's a pita and you can't please everyone all of the time. Most of us are advanced users (otherwise why are you on Arch?) and thus a lot of the time you can just fix little things like this yourself, without being rude on the AUR. I remember dealing with the leading "/" as well.. and alucryd did give the right answer, which is to use makepkg instead of aura. I personally use yaourt, but whenever I have an issue I always try makepkg first before filing a bug.

Yes, I'm copying the contents of /usr/lib/plexmediaserver, to the base package. Why? Because the current working directory, when the command 'cp -dr --no-preserve='ownership' usr/lib/plexmediaserver "${pkgdir}"/opt/' is issued, doesn't have one in it. I peeked into /usr/lib/plexmediaserver, and it was empty, so I had guessed that you were attempting to migrate some previous configuration settings from the prior installed version, maybe it was a catchall for something that had moved. So no, it was not nonsense. Maybe I was incorrect in my "guess", maybe I had an idea that wasn't fully fleshed out, but at least I had a valid theory and thought pattern, which you had never considered, and I found something that made the issue go away on my particular system. So no, I don't have to give you anything. Would it make sense inserting old configs into the base package before it's installed? No, really, it doesn't. Have I seen a lot of package maintainers who had questionable practices and hacks to make things work over the years? Yea, I have. I'm glad you aren't one of them. But you have to admit that there's at least a fair share of package maintainers who have done (and still do) wacky things that we can't easily explain, too. I'm also don't see why I should explain the headache about permissions when it's a decision that I understand and agree with, even though it's causing me grief. Necessary evil. I don't care *what* UID everything shares, I just want a common user for the processes that interact together. This way I don't end up with a ton of permissions errors when automating crap. I know you can grasp that concept. The goal of saying that it was a disaster was to communicate that I hope another change is not coming, and let you know that every time it's changed, it's a hassle for the end users. I don't disagree it was necessary this time, as I've stated many times, but it's still a disaster every time it happens.