* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Technically correct, but mozplugger displays much more like postscript and > > pdf which makes it at least "the best available". And as there are no > > "extensions" available as .deb, they stand not to discussion which leaves > > "mozplugger or not mozplugger" as choice for us. > > To cite a (very) few: > mozilla-venkman > mozilla-livehttpheaders > mozilla-checky > mozilla-diggler > mozilla-tabextensions > mozilla-ctxextensions > mozilla-stumbleupon > mozilla-bonobo > ... > > Sure, there are no "extensions" available as .deb. > > > So decide yourself what would be the most beneficial to our users (esp. the > > non-gurus) without making packaging or policy problems. > > > > I would vote for a strong recommend but if you think that many users be > > better off without mozplayer make it a suggest or leave it be... > > I'm not convinced having mozplugger installed by default (that's what a > recommend would do) would be a really good idea.
Recommends is too strong, but I think suggests would be appropriate. The thing that separates mozplugger from the rest is that it is useful in general for websurfers (eg making sites that open new windows for PDFs) much more pleasant, without requiring a bunch different plugins. If gnash gets in a good state I think we should suggest it as well. While the above extensions are certainly useful, they're all more geared towards web developers or power users. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
