[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]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: