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 #17 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-30 12:26:17 EDT --- (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? - 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? - how to name subpackages? - should subpackages depend on the programs (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.) they are extending? 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 Hicam, perhaps you could come up with short guidelines and run it through Fedora Packaging Committee first? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review