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:
> Hi -devel,
>
> > The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
> > mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
> > This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
> > extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary
> > package if not already done.
>
> 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?
>
> Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my)
> system:
> - flashplugin-nonfree
> - icedtea6-plugin
> - mozilla-openoffice.org
> - totem-mozilla
> - and maybe some more...
>
> It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package
> name with one of "plugin" or "mozilla", which is both inconsistent and
> bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI
> we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name
> space.
>
> 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'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place
for plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else.
Why ? Because it's where most of the plugins already are (but some
packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless),
and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins.
Mike
Reply to: