[Bug 583531] Review Request: mozilla-firetray - A system tray addon for mozilla

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583531

--- Comment #18 from Hicham HAOUARI <hicham.haouari at gmail.com> 2010-07-30 12:37:46 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > NO - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
> > FIXME: Package should be named firetray as that is the name of the upstream
> > project
> 
> I'd like to point out here that several (all?) existing Mozilla extensions in
> Fedora repos have mozilla- prefix:
> mozilla-adblockplus.noarch : Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox
> mozilla-noscript.noarch : JavaScript white list extension for Mozilla Firefox
> 
> It would be really nice to have uniform packaging guidelines for Mozilla
> extensions where one could, among other things, get a sample spec file and
> answers to the following questions:
>  - how to name the source rpm?

+ we name source rpm according to the spec name.

>  - how to split files between subpackages if the extension works in
>    several different browsers? For example, should there be a -core
>    subpackage plus a separate subpackage for each browser? (that's what this
>    spec is doing) Or, should we have one package which registers the
>    extension for all browsers?

+ I think forcing all mozilla applications to use it is just insane. For
example, a user might need it for Thunderbird, but not for Firefox.

>  - how to name subpackages?

+ The naming scheme that I followed seems rational to me, if you have another
suggestion, it is welcome

>  - should subpackages depend on the programs (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.)
>    they are extending?

+ Yes, because they depend on directories owned by these, and they don't make
sense without the appropriate application installed.

> 
> Debian's guidelines are here: http://wiki.debian.org/mozilla-devscripts
> They are naming their source package EXTENSIONNAME and binary package as
> xul-ext-EXTENSIONNAME

I don't think that this naming scheme can be applied in Fedora.

> 
> Hicam, perhaps you could come up with short guidelines and run it through
> Fedora Packaging Committee first?    

This is beyond the scope of this bug, you can open a ticket where appropriate
to discuss that.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.