Hello, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:51:35PM +0000, nord-stream wrote: > I thought of creating packages named firefox-branding-iceweasel, > thunderbird-branding-icedove, etc. I am aware of the naming convention, > but these extensions are not much like extensions but just branding > packages. (In fact it Provides: xul-ext-iceweasel-branding.) > Is that naming mandatory? I also found many of xul-ext-* packages do not > include a single XUL file. (Neither does firefox-branding-iceweasel.) > More discussion at: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006#145 Yes, it should definitely be xul-ext-iceweasel-branding -- that's pkg-mozext policy for anything that appears in about:addons. dh_xul-ext assumes that your package is called xul-ext-foo, and it will generate a Provides: entry for firefox-foo. > > - don't install the MPL-* files using debian/docs. Instead, include > > the full license text in debian/copyright. > > firefox-esr package seems to do this. Do you mean that it is not > appropriate for a branding package? I'm pretty sure that firefox-esr is wrong to do that. Policy 12.5 says: "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright." It then makes an *exception* to this verbatim rule: "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding files under /usr/share/common-licenses, rather than quoting them in the copyright file." Since you are not using /usr/share/common-licenses, your package doesn't fall under this exception and so you need to include it in your d/copyright file. Further the machine-readacble copyright specification says "... this field should either include the full text of the license(s) or include a pointer to the license file under /usr/share/common-licenses." > > - on my machine, the package doesn't change the application icon -- > > see the top of the attached screenshot. Maybe you can't fix that, > > though. > > Not possible with an extension. Doable with a .desktop file, I think. How about adding a new file /usr/share/applications/iceweasel.desktop that launches firefox with the old icon? This would make this extension conflict with iceweasel, but I think that would be okay so long as you added a Conflicts: line in d/control. > The complex part of Makefile is from Iceweasel package. Although most > extensions' Makefiles just pack files into .xpi, it generates files from > source files. This tiny override just saved me of hours of studying more > about customizing dh_xul-ext. Indeed: most of your Makefile complexity is unavoidable. However, some reasons why it would be good if you avoided the override: - it makes it easier for team members working on dh_xul-ext to know whether some change they are working on will break this package; and - more generally, it makes it easier for team members to work on your package if files have the standard layout (that's the point of team maintenance). It's not just about a short debian/rules: it makes your package more standardised overall which is a good thing for your project :) -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature