Re: Binary package names for mozilla plugins
"Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de> writes:
> 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".
By that reasoning you are advocating:
5. browser-*-plugin
That would also work for apt-get install browser<tab><tab>
> IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and
> modular for future changes
>
> Cheers
>
> Hans
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: