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

Re: Common handling of browser plugins?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> - flashplugin-nonfree
> - totem-mozilla
> - java-gjc-compat-plugin

> (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'.

 Sure, that's an interesting point.  We discussed this in #gnome-debian
 when the totem-mozilla plugin was introduced.  It was hard to find a
 good name because the plugin works in firefox, mozilla, xulrunner, and
 seamonkey based browsers.  Mozilla seemed a good name as being the
 distributor of all these sources.  Xulrunner also sounded good, since
 it's used to build totem, but it would sound strange for people using
 firefox or even for ubuntu which probably continues buidling against

 You might also encounter conflicting policies: e.g. what if the plugin
 is written in Java?  Does it need to follow the mozilla plugin naming
 policy of the java one?

> (2) Another fact that disturbes my is that all of these packages contain
> different plugin directories for the different browsers in Debian. 
> These are:
> flashplugin-nonfree: 	/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/firefox/plugins

 mozilla-firefox sounds obsolete and duplicated.

> totem-mozilla:		/usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/firefox/plugins

 Upstream told me once that installing in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins would
 be enough, but it's not: I think firefox only loads plugins from it's
 plugins dir.  Xulrunner based browsers will obviously only load plugins
 searched by the libxul library, so /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins I
 suppose.  Mozilla is for the aging mozilla-browser, soon to be removed.

 It seems correct to me.

> java-gjc-compat-plugin:	/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/plugins
> 			/usr/lib/mozilla-snapshot/plugins

 mozilla-firefox should be firefox, mozilla-snapshot is probably
 obsolete as the package was removed.

> In the totem-mozilla package, all linking is done before packaging, so
> all the directories already contain the plugin.

 Yes, the plugin is below /usr/lib/totem, and regular symlinks are
 shipped in the .deb.

> (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

 mozilla-firefox is probably obsolete, and this doesn't permit e.g.
 xulrunner based browsers (such as epiphany, galeon...).

> totem-mozilla		recommends: epiphany-browser | www-browser

 Sadly, there's no "mozilla-browser" provides.  There's www-browser, and
 gnome-www-browser.  I suppose we should aim at x-www-browser as well.
 Perhaps a provide expressing "mozilla-pluginaware-browser" would be

 Thanks for looking into this, it would be nice if this could result in
 some lintian warnings and / or bug reports if there's consensus on


Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>

Reply to: