Re: Packaging WebExtensions compatible with multiple browsers
Hello Yao Wei, Thank you for working on this. On Mon, Aug 21 2017, Yao Wei wrote: > 1. Should we use different prefix for the WebExtensions packages that > support different browsers? > > I think webext- prefix can be good for this kind of packages. > > 2. Should we split the package for different browsers? > > There's current efforts packaging ublock-origin for both chromium and > xul-ext. However shifting to WebExtensions implies that the codebase > will be the same. To save disk space and lower the security risk not > to split the main package could be good. Some of the > browser-dependent files can be splitted to their dedicated packages. David Prévot and I looked into this during DebCamp. You can find our attempt on the webext branch of ublock-origin's alioth repository. We thought it would be better just to have all packages use the prefix webext-, installing to something like /usr/share/webext/foo, and then create a symlink into /usr/share/firefox if the extension works in Firefox, and into /usr/share/chromium if the extension works with Chromium. Do you think this would work? -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Packaging WebExtensions compatible with multiple browsers
Am Montag, den 21.08.2017, 21:36 +0800 schrieb Yao Wei: > Hi, > > There are some problems for us to package Debian packages for > WebExtensions that can support Firefox and Chromium using the same > codebase. I do come up with my idea, but I still need a conclusion > to > prepare a package: > > 1. Should we use different prefix for the WebExtensions packages that > support different browsers? > > I think webext- prefix can be good for this kind of packages. I am all for option one. The webext- prefix sounds good. -- Benjamin Drung System Developer Debian & Ubuntu Developer ProfitBricks GmbH Greifswalder Str. 207 D - 10405 Berlin Email: benjamin.dr...@profitbricks.com Web: https://www.profitbricks.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin. Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 125506B. Geschäftsführer: Achim Weiss. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Pkg-mozext-maintainers] Packaging WebExtensions compatible with multiple browsers
Yao Wei: > Hi, > > There are some problems for us to package Debian packages for > WebExtensions that can support Firefox and Chromium using the same > codebase. I do come up with my idea, but I still need a conclusion to > prepare a package: > > 1. Should we use different prefix for the WebExtensions packages that > support different browsers? > > I think webext- prefix can be good for this kind of packages. > > 2. Should we split the package for different browsers? > > There's current efforts packaging ublock-origin for both chromium and > xul-ext. However shifting to WebExtensions implies that the codebase > will be the same. To save disk space and lower the security risk not to > split the main package could be good. Some of the browser-dependent > files can be splitted to their dedicated packages. > > Inputs are welcome! > Hi Yao Wei, thanks for taking this forward! I have not been following the discussions very closely but this all seems sensible to me. Best, Ximin -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
Packaging WebExtensions compatible with multiple browsers
Hi, There are some problems for us to package Debian packages for WebExtensions that can support Firefox and Chromium using the same codebase. I do come up with my idea, but I still need a conclusion to prepare a package: 1. Should we use different prefix for the WebExtensions packages that support different browsers? I think webext- prefix can be good for this kind of packages. 2. Should we split the package for different browsers? There's current efforts packaging ublock-origin for both chromium and xul-ext. However shifting to WebExtensions implies that the codebase will be the same. To save disk space and lower the security risk not to split the main package could be good. Some of the browser-dependent files can be splitted to their dedicated packages. Inputs are welcome! Best regards, Yao Wei signature.asc Description: PGP signature
