[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] debian package naming conventions for extensions for mozilla-based tools

[Guido Günther]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:03:28PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> hey folks--
> 
> I'm starting work on getting firegpg back into debian, and was trying to
>  sort out best-practices for package naming.
Great!

> previously, firegpg was known as iceweasel-firegpg in debian.
> 
> this made it a bit clumsy for our downstream (e.g. derived distros like
> ubuntu) which ship firefox and not iceweasel.
Adding a firefox-firegpg package downstream that depends on
iceweasel-gpg (= ${source:Version}) is trivial, so I think we don't make
life that hard for downstream. As long as Debian calls it iceweasel we
should stick to this name and use it as a prefix. Having other distros
ignore the branding issues with Firefox doesn't help.

> I'm inclined to just name the package firegpg and to mention both
> firefox and iceweasel in the package description so that people
> searching can find it, and so that our downstream folks can use it more
> freely.
> 
> However, i notice that some packages (e.g. firebug and webdeveloper) use
> the iceweasel- prefix, and others (e.g. noscript) uses a mozilla-
> prefix.  and enigmail has no prefix at all.  Are we trying to converge
> on a standard?  Is it irrelevant?
I'd sugguest:

mozilla-<ext>: works with iceweasel and iceape
iceweasel-<ext>: works with iceweasel only
icedove-<ext>: works with icedove

Does this make sense?
 -- Guido