Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [OT] Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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. Thanks, I bookmarked it and will use it the next time. It is free software (indicated by Copyleft), but I haven't found the source code. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 -browserplugin suffix. There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No better name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided. To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway. We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*? I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so browser-plugin-* would make sense. Mike -- 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/20100426064217.ga8...@glandium.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 preferable.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 latter is preferable. Ok so in the end browser-plugin-* should be preferred? That's fine, parole is not yet out of NEW so I can still make the change. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- 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/4bd54bfe.2000...@debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. Cheers. If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq -- 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/4bd5514b.8080...@free.fr
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 ...
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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? -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100426151154.ga26...@scru.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
=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
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.).
Opinions?
Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-)
Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't
seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling
about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is
we don't particularly care, as long as it is consistent.
I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please
set up one somewhere and post just a participation link.
Thanks for attempting to standardize this!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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. browserplugin-* 3. *-browserplugin 4. *-browser-plugin I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). Opinions? Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-) Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is we don't particularly care, as long as it is consistent. I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please set up one somewhere and post just a participation link. I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5 Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but not for polls. ;) -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 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? Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-) Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is we don't particularly care, as long as it is consistent. I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please set up one somewhere and post just a participation link. I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5 Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but not for polls. ;) I create a new poll that allows yes/no/maybe: http://www.doodle.com/guafbbhipwskzr8a Please add yourself there. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
[OT] Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100427010203.gc14...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else. Why ? Because it's where most of the plugins already are (but some packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless), and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins. I started packaging parole media player which provides a plugin using npapi, and recently submitted a bug to split rhythmbox package. In both case I used the scheme: browser-plugin-* (replacing mozilla by browser, in fact). None of the packages are already uploaded so I can still change. I'm about to upload parole, so I'd like to know what's the status on this? At the moment a search on -browserplugin doesn't return anything. A search on browser-plugin returns cairo-dock-quick-browser-plugin and that's all. It seems that no package was really renamed. What should we do? Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place for plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else. Why ? Because it's where most of the plugins already are (but some packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless), and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins. I started packaging parole media player which provides a plugin using npapi, and recently submitted a bug to split rhythmbox package. In both case I used the scheme: browser-plugin-* (replacing mozilla by browser, in fact). None of the packages are already uploaded so I can still change. I'm about to upload parole, so I'd like to know what's the status on this? At the moment a search on -browserplugin doesn't return anything. A search on browser-plugin returns cairo-dock-quick-browser-plugin and that's all. It seems that no package was really renamed. 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 decided. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 decided. To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway. -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 against it. No better name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided. To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway. We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*? -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 affected packages? What's the opinion of the affected packages' maintainers? OK with me. Are there any more opinions? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 the affected packages' maintainers? OK with me. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 affected packages' maintainers? We should gather more opinions, especially from the affected packages' maintainers. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 wishlist bugs against the affected packages? What's the opinion of the affected packages' maintainers? We should gather more opinions, especially from the affected packages' maintainers. Which, uhm, was his second sentence about exactly. ;) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 it's where most of the plugins already are (but some packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless), and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins. I started packaging parole media player which provides a plugin using npapi, and recently submitted a bug to split rhythmbox package. In both case I used the scheme: browser-plugin-* (replacing mozilla by browser, in fact). None of the packages are already uploaded so I can still change. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 package if not already done. 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? Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my) system: - flashplugin-nonfree - icedtea6-plugin - mozilla-openoffice.org - totem-mozilla - and maybe some more... It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package name with one of plugin or mozilla, which is both inconsistent and bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name space. I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think? - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 browsers. In general, there's few good reasons to have plugins that work only on Gecko browsers, especially since that means that a large number of browsers that Debian supports (such as Konqueror and Webkit-based browsers like Epiphany) are left without useful plugins. I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think? I think xul-plugin- is only okay if it will only work on Gecko-based browsers. It is inaccurate and misleading to use xul-plugin- unless the plugin is designed to do something specifically with Gecko. I would suggest npapi- as a prefix for plugins that use that interface. I would suggest that plugins that do not use that interface adopt it forthwith. :-) [0] Or NPRuntime. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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? I hope you mean NPAPI[0] plugins, since those will work on non-Gecko browsers. In general, there's few good reasons to have plugins that work only on Gecko browsers, especially since that means that a large number of browsers that Debian supports (such as Konqueror and Webkit-based browsers like Epiphany) are left without useful plugins. I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think? I think xul-plugin- is only okay if it will only work on Gecko-based browsers. It is inaccurate and misleading to use xul-plugin- unless the plugin is designed to do something specifically with Gecko. I would suggest npapi- as a prefix for plugins that use that interface. I would suggest that plugins that do not use that interface adopt it forthwith. :-) 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. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary package if not already done. 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? Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my) system: - flashplugin-nonfree - icedtea6-plugin - mozilla-openoffice.org - totem-mozilla - and maybe some more... It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package name with one of plugin or mozilla, which is both inconsistent and bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name space. I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think? 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 it's where most of the plugins already are (but some packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless), and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins [Was: Bits from the Mozilla Extension Packaging Team]
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 that Debtags allow to everything you would like to do with the naming scheme you proposed, and in a much more user-friendly way. It will be much less time-consuming to properly document already existing binary packages through debtags than to do a mass renaming that need uploads and passage through to the NEW queue. For source package names, I also recommend to stick to the upstream tarball name whenever possible. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
