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