On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:34:47 -0400 David Michael wrote: Hi David, > I am considering packaging a Mozilla extension, but I thought it best > to try to clarify some things beforehand. The only guidance (draft) I > found[1] 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 > consistent) structure? 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 space). Hope that helps, Tom -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
