[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


Reply to: