Hi,
after some days the poll [1] has been a clear result. browser-plugin-*
has won with a huge winning margin.
[1] http://www.doodle.com/guafbbhipwskzr8a
--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital
Am Dienstag, den 27.04.2010, 10:02 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
Le Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
I setup a doodle poll
Dear Benjamin,
I would like to recommend http://selectricity.org/ instead. In contrary to
Doodle, Selectricity is free software.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
What should we do?
I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
*-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
you've a choice among these two the latter is
On 26/04/2010 08:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so
browser-plugin-* would make sense.
On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
you've a choice among these two the
On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
*-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
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
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,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
1. browser-plugin-*
2. browserplugin-*
3. *-browserplugin
4. *-browser-plugin
Opinions?
I like #3
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
=20
Opinions?=20
I would prefer 1. or, slightly less, 4.
--=20
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
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
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
I'm sure you meant browser-plugin-* here ...
Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have
1. browser-plugin-*
2.
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 20:40 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Drung:
Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
I'm sure you meant browser-plugin-* here ...
Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then
Le Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
I setup a doodle poll
Dear Benjamin,
I would like to recommend http://selectricity.org/ instead. In contrary to
Doodle, Selectricity is free software.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On 03/02/2010 07:14, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place
for
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On 03/02/2010 07:14, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
What should we do?
I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
-browserplugin suffix.
There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No
better
name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
What should we do?
I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
-browserplugin suffix.
There were some votes for -browserplugin and none
Am 04.02.2010 11:01, schrieb Rene Engelhard:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
wishlist bugs against the
Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
wishlist bugs against the affected packages? What's the opinion of the
affected packages' maintainers?
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
wishlist bugs against the affected packages? What's the opinion of
Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 10:13 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
wishlist bugs against the affected packages? What's the opinion of the
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 10:13 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
On 03/02/2010 07:14, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place
for plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else.
Why ? Because
2010/2/2 Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi,
This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
Source package name
===
The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
2010/2/2 Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi,
This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
Source package name
===
Mike Hommey wrote:
I have a lintian check that checks most of the policy, except it was
written before lintian 2.3 and doesn't work anymore. If someone has the
time to update the script before me, I'll send it to them.
If your plan is to get it into lintian itself (and I wouldn't see any
Hi -devel,
The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
plugins as well?
I hope you mean NPAPI[0] plugins, since those will work on non-Gecko
Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 21:32 + schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
plugins as well?
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Hi -devel,
The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
Le Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:10:07PM +0100, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
npapi- prefix is not very user friendly. It reminds me of the PCMCIA
card. xul-plugin- sounds better, but do not fit. The least evil proposal
was to append -browserplugin. Better suggestions are welcome.
Hi Benjamin,
I think
Hi,
This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
Source package name
===
The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
enhanced application. These prefixes should be dropped from the source
name:
firefox-
iceape-
icedove-
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
Hello
I would like to ask 2 question as user regarding your proposal.
-- snip --
Binary package name
===
The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Thilo Six t@gmx.de wrote:
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
icedove-quotecolors
2nd question:
In the good old days (when ever these were) someone like a short sighted
person like me could search via apt or aptitude for *compatible*
Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 21:34 +0100 schrieb Thilo Six:
Question 1:
You propose to use the prefix xul-ext- which is more generic i guess but
the itself is called pkg-mozext.
Is that moz in the team name for historic reasons?
Yes, it's only for historic reasons.
Or is it planed to rename
Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 15:48 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Thilo Six t@gmx.de wrote:
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
icedove-quotecolors
2nd question:
In the good old days (when ever these were) someone like a short sighted
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 21:50
Thanks both Benjamin and James for your replys.
I gone a live with it.
--
bye Thilo
4096R/0xC70B1A8F
721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi,
This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
Source package name
===
The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
enhanced application. These prefixes
39 matches
Mail list logo
