[Pkg-mozext-maintainers] #573250 -- conflict between policy and mozilla-devscripts about file placement

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

hey debian mozilla extension packager people --

i just filed http://bugs.debian.org/573250 about a conflict between
mozilla-devscripts and our current draft of policy related to the
directory placement of extensions.

Our discussion in november 2009 [0] sort of petered out without
resolution.  Can we align them, so that our policy matches what we think
of as best practices, and our tools also correspond?

Here's a proposal for rewording the policy for file placement for xul
apps (i'm not wedded to it, this is just a trial balloon):

 0) Architecture-independent packages for extensions to xul apps get
installed in /usr/share/xul-ext-foo.

 1) preferably, these packages create a symlink corresponding to each
supported xulapp at
/usr/share/mozilla/extensions/<app-id>/<extension-id> , pointing back to
/usr/share/xul-ext-foo.

 2) if (1) is not possible, the package should have a single symlink
placed in /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/common/<extension-id>, pointing
back to /usr/share/xul-ext-foo ;  each xul-apps will evaluate the
suitability for themselves of each extension installed this way at runtime.

 3) architecture-dependent packages unpack the entire extension into
/usr/lib/xul-ext-foo, instead of /usr/share/xul-ext-foo, but otherwise
create the same set of symlinks as arch-indep packages.


What do folks think?  It would be nice to get the tools and the policy
aligned before we release.

	--dkg

[0]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozext-maintainers/2009-November/thread.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozext-maintainers/attachments/20100310/0e4328fa/attachment.pgp>