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 02-02-2010, 05:59 PM
Fabian Greffrath
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Hi -devel,

> The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
> mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
> This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
> extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary
> package if not already done.

while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
plugins as well?

Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my)
system:
- flashplugin-nonfree
- icedtea6-plugin
- mozilla-openoffice.org
- totem-mozilla
- and maybe some more...

It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package
name with one of "plugin" or "mozilla", which is both inconsistent and
bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI
we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name
space.

I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach
these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that
perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too
long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like
xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming
scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think?

- Fabian



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-02-2010, 08:32 PM
"brian m. carlson"
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
> similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
> plugins as well?

I hope you mean NPAPI[0] plugins, since those will work on non-Gecko
browsers. In general, there's few good reasons to have plugins that
work only on Gecko browsers, especially since that means that a large
number of browsers that Debian supports (such as Konqueror and
Webkit-based browsers like Epiphany) are left without useful plugins.

> I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach
> these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that
> perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too
> long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like
> xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming
> scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think?

I think xul-plugin- is only okay if it will only work on Gecko-based
browsers. It is inaccurate and misleading to use xul-plugin- unless the
plugin is designed to do something specifically with Gecko. I would
suggest npapi- as a prefix for plugins that use that interface. I would
suggest that plugins that do not use that interface adopt it forthwith.
:-)

[0] Or NPRuntime.

--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
 
Old 02-02-2010, 09:10 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 21:32 +0000 schrieb brian m. carlson:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
> > similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
> > plugins as well?
>
> I hope you mean NPAPI[0] plugins, since those will work on non-Gecko
> browsers. In general, there's few good reasons to have plugins that
> work only on Gecko browsers, especially since that means that a large
> number of browsers that Debian supports (such as Konqueror and
> Webkit-based browsers like Epiphany) are left without useful plugins.
>
> > I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach
> > these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that
> > perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too
> > long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like
> > xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming
> > scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think?
>
> I think xul-plugin- is only okay if it will only work on Gecko-based
> browsers. It is inaccurate and misleading to use xul-plugin- unless the
> plugin is designed to do something specifically with Gecko. I would
> suggest npapi- as a prefix for plugins that use that interface. I would
> suggest that plugins that do not use that interface adopt it forthwith.
> :-)

npapi- prefix is not very user friendly. It reminds me of the PCMCIA
card. xul-plugin- sounds better, but do not fit. The least evil proposal
was to append -browserplugin. Better suggestions are welcome.

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
 
Old 02-03-2010, 05:14 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi -devel,
>
> > The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
> > mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix for all Mozilla extensions [1].
> > This will group the extensions visually. There are currently 18
> > extensions that use this naming scheme already. Please rename the binary
> > package if not already done.
>
> while we are at it, maybe we could take the opportunity and introduce a
> similar scheme for all packages providing mozilla-compatible browser
> plugins as well?
>
> Let's have a look at what's maybe installed on an average (i.e. my)
> system:
> - flashplugin-nonfree
> - icedtea6-plugin
> - mozilla-openoffice.org
> - totem-mozilla
> - and maybe some more...
>
> It seems to be common practice to either prefix or suffix the package
> name with one of "plugin" or "mozilla", which is both inconsistent and
> bad. First, because -plugin is way to general and second, because AFAIUI
> we currently fork the Mozilla applications to stay out of their name
> space.
>
> I remember this discussion has been here before. My favourite approach
> these days was to suffix all packages with -browserplugin, because that
> perfectly describes what the package contains, but is a little bit too
> long, maybe. Given the current approach, I think some prefix like
> xul-plugin- would fit better and feel more consistent with the naming
> scheme of the extensions packages. What do you think?

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.

Mike


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-03-2010, 05:45 AM
Charles Plessy
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Le Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:10:07PM +0100, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
>
> npapi- prefix is not very user friendly. It reminds me of the PCMCIA
> card. xul-plugin- sounds better, but do not fit. The least evil proposal
> was to append -browserplugin. Better suggestions are welcome.

Hi Benjamin,

I think that Debtags allow to everything you would like to do with the naming
scheme you proposed, and in a much more user-friendly way. It will be much less
time-consuming to properly document already existing binary packages through
debtags than to do a mass renaming that need uploads and passage through to the
NEW queue. For source package names, I also recommend to stick to the upstream
tarball name whenever possible.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2010, 08:13 AM
Fabian Greffrath
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

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?


- Fabian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2010, 09:01 AM
Rene Engelhard
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Hi,

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.

Grüße/Regards,

René
--
.'`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2010, 01:48 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 10:13 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> 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?

We should gather more opinions, especially from the affected packages'
maintainers.

--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
 
Old 02-04-2010, 01:55 PM
Rene Engelhard
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 10:13 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> > 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?
>
> We should gather more opinions, especially from the affected packages'
> maintainers.

Which, uhm, was his second sentence about exactly.

Grüße/Regards,

René
--
.'`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-04-2010, 03:21 PM
Yves-Alexis Perez
 
Default Binary package names for mozilla plugins

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.

Cheers,
--
Yves-Alexis


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 AM.

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