On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Hans-J. Ullrich <hans.ullr...@loop.de> wrote: >> Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> writes: >> > Hm, browserplugin-* would be a new option. Then we would have >> > >> > 1. browser-plugin-* >> > 2. browserplugin-* >> > 3. *-browserplugin >> > 4. *-browser-plugin > > 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?
This discussion is about packages which provide an NPAPI-compatible plugin. This means that the plugin works for any browser which supports the standard NPAPI plugin interface. Therefore, there is no reason to have a specific browser name in the package name and should instead use a common naming convention. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <james...@debian.org> -- 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/i2t14ccba101004261318r168411cfv45731a4ee5fac...@mail.gmail.com
