Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins

["Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de>]

Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> 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
> 

I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice 
might be 4. Let me just explain why:

If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is in 
for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera 
whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is for 
the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin".

I also imagine, that in the future, there might be iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, 
"video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might be 
also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules".

IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and 
modular for future changes

Cheers

Hans