On Mon, Sep 18, 2006, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > - flashplugin-nonfree > - totem-mozilla > - java-gjc-compat-plugin
> (1) As you can see, each of these packages follows a different naming > pattern which makes it difficult for the user to find the browser plugin > of his needs. I suggest to introduce a suffix which will be added to the > package name and makes clear that it contains a plugin. My suggestions > are 'foo-mozilla' or even better 'foo-browserplugin'. Sure, that's an interesting point. We discussed this in #gnome-debian when the totem-mozilla plugin was introduced. It was hard to find a good name because the plugin works in firefox, mozilla, xulrunner, and seamonkey based browsers. Mozilla seemed a good name as being the distributor of all these sources. Xulrunner also sounded good, since it's used to build totem, but it would sound strange for people using firefox or even for ubuntu which probably continues buidling against firefox-dev. You might also encounter conflicting policies: e.g. what if the plugin is written in Java? Does it need to follow the mozilla plugin naming policy of the java one? > (2) Another fact that disturbes my is that all of these packages contain > different plugin directories for the different browsers in Debian. > These are: > flashplugin-nonfree: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins > /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/plugins > /usr/lib/firefox/plugins mozilla-firefox sounds obsolete and duplicated. > totem-mozilla: /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins > /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins > /usr/lib/firefox/plugins Upstream told me once that installing in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins would be enough, but it's not: I think firefox only loads plugins from it's plugins dir. Xulrunner based browsers will obviously only load plugins searched by the libxul library, so /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins I suppose. Mozilla is for the aging mozilla-browser, soon to be removed. It seems correct to me. > java-gjc-compat-plugin: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins > /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/plugins > /usr/lib/mozilla-snapshot/plugins mozilla-firefox should be firefox, mozilla-snapshot is probably obsolete as the package was removed. > In the totem-mozilla package, all linking is done before packaging, so > all the directories already contain the plugin. Yes, the plugin is below /usr/lib/totem, and regular symlinks are shipped in the .deb. > (3) Another thing in which all those packages differ is the > recommendation and suggestion of compatible browsers: > flashplugin-nonfree suggests: mozilla-browser (>= 2:1.1) | > mozilla-firefox | firefox mozilla-firefox is probably obsolete, and this doesn't permit e.g. xulrunner based browsers (such as epiphany, galeon...). > totem-mozilla recommends: epiphany-browser | www-browser Sadly, there's no "mozilla-browser" provides. There's www-browser, and gnome-www-browser. I suppose we should aim at x-www-browser as well. Perhaps a provide expressing "mozilla-pluginaware-browser" would be nice? Thanks for looking into this, it would be nice if this could result in some lintian warnings and / or bug reports if there's consensus on these. Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]