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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
