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@xxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review