[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 Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 21:32 +0000 schrieb brian m. carlson:
> 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.
> :-)

npapi- prefix is not very user friendly. It reminds me of the PCMCIA
card. xul-plugin- sounds better, but do not fit. The least evil proposal
was to append -browserplugin. Better suggestions are welcome.

Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)

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

Reply to: