Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> I'm personally interested in developing programs with embedded gnash, so I
> think it's worth not to drop it. I'd like to include the package as well, at
> least to experimental, to pass the NEW queue as soon as possible. If there are
More power to ya! :-) I hadn't really thought about Gnash having an
exported API, although as we do other code cleanup and Gnash gets more
modular and better designed, this becomes more possible. I just wouldn't
want anyone using this to depend on it not changing often...
> I'd prefer having mozilla-plugin-... and konqueror-plugin-... as it makes more
> clear in the list that it's a plugin. mozilla-firefox, to say an example, has
> that kind of name and is not a plugin.
Current packages of plugins don't usually add "plugin", but I guess I
see your point. Long names shouldn't really be an issue.
> Do you prefer konqueror-plugin-gnash ? that would be no problem and make it
> clearer. I just thought klash was the official name for it.
Good question. Klash is part of the Gnash project, and not a
standalone thing. So I'd assume that the "Gnash plugin" for Konqueror
would still be "gnash", not "klash". I'm worried a tiny bit about
confusing people into thinking it's a whole separate project, which it's
not. It I hadn't integrated the Klash code into Gnash it might still be
a separate project. I just figured it would be easier to maintain max
functionality for KDE and Konqueror if it was all together.
> I'm separating them into different packages to lower the needed dependencies
> for each one.
I don't really have a feeling for if it is better to have one big
package with everything in it, or multiple small packages. I do like
reducing dependencies though, but I'm curious what other people think.
- rob -
_______________________________________________
Gnash mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash
