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

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 06/23/2009 06:00 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
> Having other distros
> ignore the branding issues with Firefox doesn't help.

to be fair, i don't think the other distributions *have* the same
branding issues as debian.  I fully support the DFSG and the DSC.  That
said, it's clear to me that the problem for debian is the intersection
of the DFSG and the MozCorp trademark policy, not "branding issues"
alone.  I've been in touch with FreeBSD folks, for example, and they've
resolved the problem within their context (though granted, they don't
have anything nearly as strict or wide-reaching as the DFSG to reckon with).

> mozilla-<ext>: works with iceweasel and iceape
> iceweasel-<ext>: works with iceweasel only
> icedove-<ext>: works with icedove
> 
> Does this make sense?

That seems reasonable as far as it goes, but it doesn't cover all
packages. What about packages that work with icedove and iceweasel but
not iceape?  what about packages that work with icedove and iceape but
not iceweasel (i.e. gecko 1.8 these days)?  what about extensions that
can connect to iceowl or sunbird, like google-calendar-provider?

Do we have a catalog of debian-packaged XUL-app extensions someplace
that we can check to see if there's a standard?  Do we want there to be
a standard policy for this stuff?

At some level, it seems simpler to ignore the prefix idea and leave the
Depends: and/or Enhances: field to do the heavy lifting, no?

Is the only argument for the prefix the one offered by intrigeri (tab
completion)?  Does tab completion even seem like a valid argument for
mozilla-*, given that most users won't know to try that?

I'm really not trying to kick up a fuss; i'm trying to understand the
rationales for the different choices.  I like the simplicity of a
firegpg .deb -- no branding issues with firegpg's upstream, why should
we inflict the mozCorp-v-DFSG pain and renaming on downstream as a
result, given that mozCorp isn't directly involved?

If there's a consensus on how to do extension naming in debian (or even
better, a policy document, or a draft thereof), i'm happy to comply.  I
just want to understand the tradeoffs more clearly.

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 890 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozext-maintainers/attachments/20090624/ccb6a854/attachment.pgp>