Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com>:
> > On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg at gmail.com>:
> >>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >>>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
> >>>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
> >>>> "install" to install an extension.
> >>>> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
> >>> Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in
> >>> extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org and just point users to that insteand
> >>> of packaging it?
> >> What's the point other then duplicated effort?
> >
> > extenstion.gnome.fedoraproject.org would contain the "unofficial" ones ...
> 
> There is no such thing, every non mallware extension should be in
> extensions.gnome.org (same as addons.mozilla.org).

  Same as...
Nazwa              : mozilla-adblockplus
Architektura       : noarch
Wersja             : 1.3.8
Wydanie            : 1.fc15

  I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole packaging
and repositories concept.  Some companies grasp it (I have yum repos
provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and firmwares,
Adobe Flash and Air, Virtualbox...).

  Actually, if addons.m.o and extensions.g.o provided yum.repo file,
my point would be moot.

-- 
Tomasz Torcz                "Funeral in the morning, IDE hacking
xmpp: zdzichubg at chrome.pl    in the afternoon and evening." - Alan Cox