Common handling of browser plugins?
Dear Debian developers!
At the time of this writing I have 3 packages installed that provide a
plugin for Mozilla-compatible browsers.
(1) As you can see, each of these packages follows a different naming
pattern which makes it difficult for the user to find the browser plugin
of his needs. I suggest to introduce a suffix which will be added to the
package name and makes clear that it contains a plugin. My suggestions
are 'foo-mozilla' or even better 'foo-browserplugin'.
(2) Another fact that disturbes my is that all of these packages contain
different plugin directories for the different browsers in Debian.
Please note the fact, that these directories are empty in the
flashplugin-nonfree and java-gjc-compat-plugin packages. The plugins are
linked in the postinst script via the alternatives system in the
java-gjc-compat-plugin package. In the flashplugin-nonfree package, the
plugin is downloaded in postinst via update-flashplugin and then linked
into the directories.
In the totem-mozilla package, all linking is done before packaging, so
all the directories already contain the plugin.
I think a consensus should be found which plugin directories are to be
included in the package and how/when the plugin should be linked into
(3) Another thing in which all those packages differ is the
recommendation and suggestion of compatible browsers:
flashplugin-nonfree suggests: mozilla-browser (>= 2:1.1) |
mozilla-firefox | firefox
totem-mozilla recommends: epiphany-browser | www-browser
java-gjc-compat-plugin does not recommend or suggest any browser
In my opinion this should be matched, too.
Institut für Experimentalphysik I
Raum: NB 2/28