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

Re: proper way to package mozilla extensions



On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > >...<
> > 1. There are two possible packaging schemes
> >   a. Keep only original .xpi in the .orig.tar.gz, and extract/dpatch it
> >      at build time.
> >   b. Keep unzipped .xpi in .orig.tar.gz.
>     c. Distribute the actual source code in the orig.tar.gz.
> >...<
doh... how  could I forget about this one? ;-)

> Otherwise it's a PITA to actually patch the .xpi, as you have to
> unpack it, unpack the jar, patch the jar, pack the jar, pack the xpi.
totally true...

> See Michael Spang's work on greasemonkey for an example on how to do
> this.
thank you - I will check it out!

> 1: Note that I personally won't sponsor mozilla modules that don't
> distribute the actual source in the orig.tar.gz...
xpi and jar is the source -- it is just packaged with the other
than tar/gzip archiver and nested in each other to make our life fun ;-)
That is why there is no alternative tarball with the "true source" is
often provided (even if the license is GPL) -- at least I didn't mention any on
https://addons.mozilla.org. I will check with the upstream if they will
not mind provide .tar.gz as well...


-- 
                                  .-.
=------------------------------   /v\  ----------------------------=
Keep in touch                    // \\     (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko              /(   )\               ICQ#: 60653192
                   Linux User    ^^-^^    [175555]


Attachment: pgpUah81ziHHb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: