Am Montag, 26. April 2010 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: > > Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 11:07 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > >> > > I'd rather say that generally binary packages split words at '-', so > >> > > if you've a choice among these two the latter is preferable. > >> > > >> > If this is so, then browserplugin-* should content everyone. > >> > >> I'm sure you meant "browser-plugin-*" here ... > > > > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have > > > > 1. browser-plugin-* > > 2. browserplugin-* > > 3. *-browserplugin > > 4. *-browser-plugin > > > > I think all of these would work (with a slight preference to 1. or 2.). > > > > Opinions? > > I think *-bwoser[-]plugin is a bad choice for 2 reasons (which you can > consider one reason): > > A) apt-get install browser<tab><tab> > > This will complete nicely to give me a list of plugins with options 1 > and 2 and all the packages it completes have a common use case, to make > my browser better. No such thing with options 3 and 4. > > B) Sorting in frontends (aptitude, ...) > > Again say you are looking for usefull plugins to add to your > browser. With options 1 and 2 you get all the plugins in one blog and > can easily scroll through them. With options 3 and 4 they will be > scattered all over the place. > > > I think the seperate groups formed by a common prefix in options 3 and 4 > would be much smaller and less usefull to users than having all browser > plugins in one block. > > MfG Goswin >
I think, 3 and 4 are the better choices than 1 or 2. IMO, the best choice might be 4. Let me just explain why: If people are looikng for something, they first look, what application it is in for. Browser plugins might be available for iceweasel, konqueror, opera whatever. So, the first choice is "iceweasel-", then what is it? Yes, it is for the "-browser", and at last, they see, yes, a "-plugin". I also imagine, that in the future, there might be iceweasel-"sound"-plugins, "video"-plugins, "flash"-plugins or whatever. I also imagine, there might be also not only plugins, but "tools", or maybe "modules". IMO we should decide for a structure or syntax, that is easy to understand and modular for future changes Cheers Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004262154.18997.hans.ullr...@loop.de
