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

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 06/28/2009 08:22 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:11:18AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> It's actually not silently ignored.  For example, the Gentoo team spoke
>> with MozCorp and got permission:
>>
>>  http://bugs.gentoo.org/76920
>>
> Reading this, it's simply not helping. Mozilla agreeing once that the
> applied patchs are o.k. doesn't mean that it's o.k. in general. This
> means Gentoo has to get a thumbs up from Mozilla with every new patch
> added. The definition of "Serious Modifications" is very vague.

agreed, it puts gentoo at the mercy of Mozilla.  otoh, mozilla seems
eager to maintain its goodwill with the free software community at the
moment, and its hand is forced by US (and international?) trademark law
to "defend" its marks.  I have the impression that Mozilla will
basically rubber-stamp any change that reasonable developers from big
distros make.  (for now, at least!)  My point was just that while gentoo
sees fit to make this tradeoff given the current situation, debian
cannot even *consider* making the tradeoff because of our position on
software freedom.  (i think this is a good thing)

> So what about this "policy":
> 
> Packages shipping extensions for xul based applications should put them
> in /usr/share/xul-extension or /usr/linb/xul-extensions. Using the
> former if theres only arch-indep data or the later with arch-dep data.
> 
> The extensions should then be symlinked into the applications directory
> (e.g. /usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions) for all supported xul applications.
> 
> The binary package's name should then be xul-ext-<ext> with <ext> being
> the exteonsions name. E.g. xul-ext-nostalgy for Icedove's nostalgy
> extension.
> 
> In order to ease finding extensions for a given application the packages
> should 
> Provide: <xul-based-app1>-<extension>, <xul-based-app2>-<extension>
> and
> Enhances: <xul-based-app1>, <xul-based-app2>
> 
> Rationale: 
> 	* canonical place to look for extensions instead of having them
> 	  spread across several directories (iceape, iceowl, icedove,
>           iceweasel, ...)
>         * consistent naming (visual grouping) for all extensions (no
>           mozilla-<ext> vs. iceweasel-<ext>)
> 	* eases automatic packaging of extensions
> 	* ease work for downstream distributions
> 
> Does this make sense? If so I'll add this to the wiki as start of an
> extensions policy.

This sounds good to me, and maybe it's enough of a change to every
single existing package that everyone can be equally grumpy about it ;)
The rationale does a good job of outlining the reasons why this
standardization would be useful.

I'd say we should start it up on the wiki as a draft of a proposed
extensions policy.

Is there anyone not on this list who we should explicitly ask to look at
the draft once it's published in a canonical spot?

	--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/20090628/1bd9ccb4/attachment.pgp>