Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 23:58 +0200 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > "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> Ok, I added it to the poll, but i doubt that it will win against browser-plugin-*. > > IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and > > modular for future changes -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil