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

Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> writes:

> Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
>> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
>> > > you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable.
>> >
>> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone.
>> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ...
> Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have
>      1. browser-plugin-*
>      2. browserplugin-*
>      3. *-browserplugin
>      4. *-browser-plugin
> I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.).
> Opinions?

I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can
consider one reason):

A) apt-get install browser<tab><tab>

This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1
and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make
my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4.

B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...)

Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your
browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and
can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be
scattered all over the place.

I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4
would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser
plugins in one block.

MfG     Goswin

Reply to: