"Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullr...@loop.de> writes: > Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: >> Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: >> > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so >> >> > > if you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. >> >> > >> >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. >> >> >> >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... >> > >> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have >> > >> > 1. browser-plugin-* >> > 2. browserplugin-* >> > 3. *-browserplugin >> > 4. *-browser-plugin >> > >> > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). >> > >> > Opinions? >> >> I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can >> consider one reason): >> >> A) apt-get install browser<tab><tab> >> >> This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 >> and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make >> my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. >> >> B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) >> >> Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your >> browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and >> can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be >> scattered all over the place. >> >> >> I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 >> would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser >> plugins in one block. >> >> MfG Goswin >> > > I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice > might be 4. Let me just explain why: > > If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is > in > for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera > whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is > for > the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin". > > I also imagine, that in the future, there might be iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, > "video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might be > also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules".
By that reasoning you are advocating: 5. browser-*-plugin That would also work for apt-get install browser<tab><tab> > IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand > and > modular for future changes > > Cheers > > Hans MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6g9euzh....@frosties.localdomain