Mozilla Extension Guidelines
 

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, it's probably best to follow the current guidelines
> but keep an ear to the rail for any action on the draft. *It could be
> problematic to follow something that may or may not ever become official.

I suppose my problem is that I was unable to find any current
guidelines relating specifically to Mozilla extensions, so that draft
was all I had for reference. The existing extension packages are
inconsistent, e.g. in requiring applications or which directories they
own.

If there are currently accepted Mozilla-specific guidelines, they seem
to elude me. I would appreciate a URL.

Thanks.

David
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Mozilla Extension Guidelines
 

David Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> wrote:
>
>> Unless I'm mistaken, it's probably best to follow the current guidelines
>> but keep an ear to the rail for any action on the draft. It could be
>> problematic to follow something that may or may not ever become official.
>>
>
> I suppose my problem is that I was unable to find any current
> guidelines relating specifically to Mozilla extensions, so that draft
> was all I had for reference. The existing extension packages are
> inconsistent, e.g. in requiring applications or which directories they
> own.
>
> If there are currently accepted Mozilla-specific guidelines, they seem
> to elude me. I would appreciate a URL.
>
> Thanks.
>
> David
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
I'm not aware of any currently in force. Given that, I think that as
long as the package complies with the current general guidelines,
anything else is up to you.

If you like the draft, and would like to help refine it or get it
moving, you could work with the author.

-J

--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Mozilla Extension Guidelines
 

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:34:47 -0400
David Michael wrote:

Hi David,

> I am considering packaging a Mozilla extension, but I thought it best
> to try to clarify some things beforehand. The only guidance (draft) I
> found[1] doesn't seem to be followed by existing packages, but I agree
> with it in principle.

the reason, why I (noscript maintainer) didn't follow the draft is,
that I didn't knew it.

> Is it acceptable to follow the draft guidelines, or should new
> packages attempt to conform to the existing packages' (not quite
> consistent) structure?

There is a problem in the draft. Some package needs to own the "common"
subdirectory, called _moz_ext_commondir. Until such a macro/directory
does not exist, I wouldn't give the advice to use the draft...

I just pushed a change to mozilla-noscript which changes all the macros
so the draft is followed (with defining all the needed macros in the
package). Now the extension is installed into the _firefox_extdir and
the seahorse extension links to that to avoid the problem with the
common directory. That can be changed, when the draft is approved...

> Is it appropriate to support any/all applications listed in the
> install.rdf, even if they are not available in Fedora? (I don't see a
> downside to this if the draft guidelines are followed, and it would
> allow locally managed applications to take advantage of extensions
> installed from RPMs.)

I would do so, if the applications are free and have a chance of beeing
in fedora in the future (some extra symlinks don't need any relevant
space).

Hope that helps,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Mozilla Extension Guidelines
 

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:33:02 +0200
Thomas Spura wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:34:47 -0400
> David Michael wrote:
> > Is it appropriate to support any/all applications listed in the
> > install.rdf, even if they are not available in Fedora? (I don't
> > see a downside to this if the draft guidelines are followed, and it
> > would allow locally managed applications to take advantage of
> > extensions installed from RPMs.)
>
> I would do so, if the applications are free and have a chance of
> beeing in fedora in the future (some extra symlinks don't need any
> relevant space).

Better support that applications, you want to support ;)
I haven't heard anything of "Fennec" or "E Music" till looking into the
install.rdf right now. I'll just support seamonkey and firefox till
there is a feature request for anything else...

Thanks,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging