Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans-J. Ullrich <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>> Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> writes:
>> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have
>> >
>> > 1. browser-plugin-*
>> > 2. browserplugin-*
>> > 3. *-browserplugin
>> > 4. *-browser-plugin
>
> 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?
This discussion is about packages which provide an NPAPI-compatible
plugin. This means that the plugin works for any browser which supports
the standard NPAPI plugin interface. Therefore, there is no reason to
have a specific browser name in the package name and should instead use
a common naming convention.
--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
Reply to: