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

[Guido Günther]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:57AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 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
They do AFAIK. The problem is that Mozilla doesn't allow
redistribution as Firefox if you patch the source. This is silently
ignored by most other distros.

[..snip..] 
> 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?
Having this standarized is desireable. I'm still in favour of not
dropping the prefix completely. Using the app name if it's only for one
mozilla product and using mozilla- if it coveres several of them.

> 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?
We're also prefixing all python modules with python- and all perl
modules end with -perl. This makes identifying things a lot easier.

> 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?
Visual grouping is another one.

[..snip..] 
> 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.
It'd say:

<prod>-<ext> if it only covers one XUL based product
mozilla-<ext> if it covers several.

I don't see much point in differentiating this further now. If this
sound reasonable I'll add this to:
	http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMozExtTeam
Cheers,
 -- Guido