FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-26-2010, 02:56 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

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?

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
 
Old 04-26-2010, 03:11 PM
Clint Adams
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 1. browser-plugin-*
> 2. browserplugin-*
> 3. *-browserplugin
> 4. *-browser-plugin
>
> Opinions?

I like #3


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426151154.GA26600@scru.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426151154.GA26600@scru.org
 
Old 04-26-2010, 03:26 PM
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin"
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

>=20
> Opinions?=20

I would prefer 1. or, slightly less, 4.

--=20
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
 
Old 04-26-2010, 04:49 PM
Stefano Zacchiroli
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > 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?

Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-)

Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't
seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling
about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is
"we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent.

I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please
set up one somewhere and post just a participation link.

Thanks for attempting to standardize this!
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' ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu tous ceux que j'aime
 
Old 04-26-2010, 06:40 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-)
>
> Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't
> seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling
> about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is
> "we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent.
>
> I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please
> set up one somewhere and post just a participation link.

I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5

Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but
not for polls.

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
 
Old 04-26-2010, 06:51 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 20:40 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Drung:
> Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Please don't do polls on a mailing list :-)
> >
> > Arguments have been given for using '-' in the name (while I haven't
> > seen any argument for _not_ using dashes). I presume the general feeling
> > about whether it should be at the beginning or at the end of packages is
> > "we don't particularly care", as long as it is consistent.
> >
> > I personally don't think a poll is needed, but if you feel it is please
> > set up one somewhere and post just a participation link.
>
> I setup a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/2wmykvgy7ara5pd5
>
> Please participate there. And yes, doodle is designed for schedules, but
> not for polls.

I create a new poll that allows yes/no/maybe:
http://www.doodle.com/guafbbhipwskzr8a

Please add yourself there. Sorry for the inconvenience.

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
 
Old 04-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87tyqyxc9q.fsf@frosties.localdomain">http://lists.debian.org/87tyqyxc9q.fsf@frosties.localdomain
 
Old 04-26-2010, 07:54 PM
"Hans-J. Ullrich"
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

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".

IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and
modular for future changes

Cheers

Hans


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004262154.18997.hans.ullrich@loop.de">http://lists.debian.org/201004262154.18997.hans.ullrich@loop.de
 
Old 04-26-2010, 08:18 PM
James Vega
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans-J. Ullrich <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>> Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com> writes:
>> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have
>> >
>> > * * *1. browser-plugin-*
>> > * * *2. browserplugin-*
>> > * * *3. *-browserplugin
>> > * * *4. *-browser-plugin
>
> 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?

This discussion is about packages which provide an NPAPI-compatible
plugin. This means that the plugin works for any browser which supports
the standard NPAPI plugin interface. Therefore, there is no reason to
have a specific browser name in the package name and should instead use
a common naming convention.

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: i2t14ccba101004261318r168411cfv45731a4ee5faca53@ma il.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/i2t14ccba101004261318r168411cfv45731a4ee5faca53@ma il.gmail.com
 
Old 04-26-2010, 09:58 PM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default 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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87y6g9euzh.fsf@frosties.localdomain">http://lists.debian.org/87y6g9euzh.fsf@frosties.localdomain
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org