Your message dated Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:01:14 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line closing some old wontfix-bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #436724,
regarding flashplugin-nonfree: Suggestion: flash-npapi-plugin
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
436724: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=436724
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: flashplugin-nonfree
Severity: wishlist
Suggestion by Edward Welbourne <[email protected]>.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi various debian package maintainers,
I handle the technical issues of packaging for the Opera browser.
I've lately been reviewing what we Suggest for debian.
Since there is no virtual package for flash plugins, it's necessary to
list all, which is both tedious for browser package maintainers and
unfair to plugin package maintainers; if I miss someone out, that
would have worked, there's no way for them to mark their package as
being suitable to the task; and my users won't know about it as an
option for meeting their needs.
There are some plugins that are specific to one browser, or family;
but support for NPAPI is widespread enough that plugins which support
it could sensibly advertise themselves to browsers that support it via
a virtual package. It would thus make sense to have *-npapi-plugin
virtual packages (or, indeed, simply *-npapi, since NPAPI is a plugin
API) that each NPAPI-compatible *-plugin (for * = flash, pdf, ...)
could Provide and each browser could Suggest, thereby making
everyone's lives easier.
This would be analogous to the existing virtual package www-browser,
which any plugin can simply Suggest, rather than having to maintain an
up-to-date list of known browsers. There might be some value in
specifying a separate www-npapi-browser, but any NPAPI-compatibility
plugin for a browser that doesn't do NPAPI itself would suffice to
blurr that distinction into oblivion.
However, I'm not familiar enough with Debian's process for deciding
what virtual packages should exist, or for creating them. Does a
flash-npapi-plugin virtual package sound a worthwhile idea to you,
variously ? What would I need to do to get it put into effect ?
Eddy.
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- End Message ---
