Am 04.02.2010 11:01, schrieb Rene Engelhard:

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

Am 03.02.2010 07:14, schrieb Mike Hommey:

I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.


Fine, but what now? Can we already call this a consensus? Shall I file
wishlist bugs against the affected packages? What's the opinion of the
affected packages' maintainers?


OK with me.


Are there any more opinions?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 07:14, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
> >
> > Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
> > plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place
> > for plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else.
> >
> > Why ? Because it's where most of the plugins already are (but some
> > packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless),
> > and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins.
> >
> I started packaging parole media player which provides a plugin using
> npapi, and recently submitted a bug to split rhythmbox package. In both
> case I used the scheme:
>
> browser-plugin-*
>
> (replacing mozilla by browser, in fact). None of the packages are
> already uploaded so I can still change.

I'm about to upload parole, so I'd like to know what's the status on
this? At the moment a search on -browserplugin doesn't return anything.
A search on browser-plugin returns cairo-dock-quick-browser-plugin and
that's all. It seems that no package was really renamed.

What should we do?

Cheers,
--
Yves-Alexis

Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On 03/02/2010 07:14, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I'd go for the -browserplugin suffix.
> > >
> > > Speaking of plugins, I see there are several plugin packages that put
> > > plugins in various places. Here is a breaking news: the canonical place
> > > for plugins is /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Nowhere else.
> > >
> > > Why ? Because it's where most of the plugins already are (but some
> > > packages like to put their files in several places, which is pointless),
> > > and it's where all applications are already looking for plugins.
> > >
> > I started packaging parole media player which provides a plugin using
> > npapi, and recently submitted a bug to split rhythmbox package. In both
> > case I used the scheme:
> >
> > browser-plugin-*
> >
> > (replacing mozilla by browser, in fact). None of the packages are
> > already uploaded so I can still change.
>
> I'm about to upload parole, so I'd like to know what's the status on
> this? At the moment a search on -browserplugin doesn't return anything.
> A search on browser-plugin returns cairo-dock-quick-browser-plugin and
> that's all. It seems that no package was really renamed.
>
> What should we do?

I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
-browserplugin suffix.

There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No better
name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided.

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)

On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > What should we do?
>
> I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
> -browserplugin suffix.
>
> There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No
> better
> name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided.

To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway.
--
Yves-Alexis

Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > What should we do?
> >
> > I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
> > -browserplugin suffix.
> >
> > There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No
> > better
> > name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided.
>
> To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway.

We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
*-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> > On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > > What should we do?
> > >
> > > I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
> > > -browserplugin suffix.
> > >
> > > There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No
> > > better
> > > name was proposed. Therefore I think that it was decided.
> >
> > To be perfectly fair, browser-plugin-* had my vote, but anyway.
>
> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?

I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so
browser-plugin-* would make sense.

Mike


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426064217.GA8996@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426064217.GA8996@glandium.org

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?

I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable.

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

On 26/04/2010 08:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so
> browser-plugin-* would make sense.

On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli 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.

Ok so in the end browser-plugin-* should be preferred? That's fine,
parole is not yet out of NEW so I can still make the change.

Cheers,
--
Yves-Alexis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BD54BFE.2000200@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4BD54BFE.2000200@debian.org

On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
>> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
>
> I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
> you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable.
>
> Cheers.
>
If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone.

--
Jean-Christophe Dubacq


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4BD5514B.8080309@free.fr">http://lists.debian.org/4BD5514B.8080309@free.fr

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 ...

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime