Hi,
after some days the poll [1] has been a clear result. browser-plugin-*
has won with a huge winning margin.
[1] http://www.doodle.com/guafbbhipwskzr8a
--
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital si
Am Dienstag, den 27.04.2010, 10:02 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Le Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
> >
> > I setup a doodle poll
>
> Dear Benjamin,
>
> I would like to recommend http://selectricity.org/ instead. In contrary to
> Doodle, Selectricity is free sof
Le Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
>
> I setup a doodle poll
Dear Benjamin,
I would like to recommend http://selectricity.org/ instead. In contrary to
Doodle, Selectricity is free software.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
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 opt
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. b
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 thin
>=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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
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
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 "bro
On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
>> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
>
> I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
On 26/04/2010 08:42, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I'd say usually namespaces in packages names are prefixes, so
> browser-plugin-* would make sense.
On 26/04/2010 09:52, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
> you've a choice among these two th
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> We didn't discussed browser-plugin-*. Should we make a poll with
> *-browserplugin and browser-plugin-*?
I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so if
you've a choice among these two the latter is preferabl
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> > On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > > What should we do?
> > >
> > > I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
>
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > What should we do?
> >
> > I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
> > -browserplugin suffix.
> >
> > There were some votes for -browserplugi
On dim., 2010-04-25 at 18:58 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > What should we do?
>
> I think we should start using the new naming policy to add the
> -browserplugin suffix.
>
> There were some votes for -browserplugin and none against it. No
> better
> name was proposed. Therefore I think that it
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
> On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > 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 pu
On jeu., 2010-02-04 at 17:21 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> 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
Am 04.02.2010 11:01, schrieb Rene Engelhard:
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 affec
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 ? Be
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
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 o
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
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
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 th
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 1
Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 21:32 + 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
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
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
Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> I have a lintian check that checks most of the policy, except it was
> written before lintian 2.3 and doesn't work anymore. If someone has the
> time to update the script before me, I'll send it to them.
If your plan is to get it into lintian itself (and I wouldn't see any
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Mike Hommey :
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
> >>
> >> Source package name
> >> ===
2010/2/2 Mike Hommey :
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
>>
>> Source package name
>> ===
>>
>> The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:34:31PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
>
> Source package name
> ===
>
> The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
> enhanced application. These
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 21:50
Thanks both Benjamin and James for your replys.
I gone a live with it.
--
bye Thilo
4096R/0xC70B1A8F
721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 15:48 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Thilo Six wrote:
> > Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
> >> icedove-quotecolors
> >
> > 2nd question:
> > In the good old days (when ever these were) someone like a short sighted
> > p
Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 21:34 +0100 schrieb Thilo Six:
> Question 1:
> You propose to use the prefix "xul-ext-" which is more generic i guess but
> the itself is called "pkg-mozext".
> Is that "moz" in the team name for historic reasons?
Yes, it's only for historic reasons.
> Or is it planed t
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Thilo Six wrote:
> Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
>> icedove-quotecolors
>
> 2nd question:
> In the good old days (when ever these were) someone like a short sighted
> person like me could search via apt or aptitude for *compatible* extention
Benjamin Drung wrote the following on 01.02.2010 20:34
Hello
I would like to ask 2 question as user regarding your proposal.
-- --
> Binary package name
> ===
>
> The Mozilla extension packaging team decided to use xul-ext- (instead of
> mozilla-, iceweasel-, etc.) as prefix
Hi,
This mail targets all developers, which maintain Mozilla extensions.
Source package name
===
The source package name for extension should not contain the name of the
enhanced application. These prefixes should be dropped from the source
name:
firefox-
iceape-
icedove-
icewea
39 matches
Mail list logo
