On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:34:47 -0400
David Michael wrote:
I am considering packaging a Mozilla extension, but I thought it
to try to clarify some things beforehand. The only guidance (draft) I
found doesn't seem to be followed by existing packages, but I agree
with it in principle.
the reason, why I (noscript maintainer) didn't follow the draft is,
that I didn't knew it.
Is it acceptable to follow the draft guidelines, or should new
packages attempt to conform to the existing packages' (not quite
There is a problem in the draft. Some package needs to own the "common"
subdirectory, called _moz_ext_commondir. Until such a macro/directory
does not exist, I wouldn't give the advice to use the draft...
I just pushed a change to mozilla-noscript which changes all the macros
so the draft is followed (with defining all the needed macros in the
package). Now the extension is installed into the _firefox_extdir and
the seahorse extension links to that to avoid the problem with the
common directory. That can be changed, when the draft is approved...
Is it appropriate to support any/all applications listed in the
install.rdf, even if they are not available in Fedora? (I don't see a
downside to this if the draft guidelines are followed, and it would
allow locally managed applications to take advantage of extensions
installed from RPMs.)
I would do so, if the applications are free and have a chance of beeing
in fedora in the future (some extra symlinks don't need any relevant
Hope that helps,