Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:29:33 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: "FreeBSD Ports" <ports@freebsd.org>, "Alex Dupre" <ale@FreeBSD.org>, "Thierry Thomas" <thierry@freebsd.org>, "Lapo Luchini" <lapo@lapo.it> Subject: xpi-extensions naming scheme Message-ID: <cb5206420605040529v7717f809m62e51306ce8ef0db@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I urge contributors and committers to choose folder
names wisely for newly created xpi extensions. If
you take a look at [1] you'll find over a thousand
of extensions and two times that of undescores in
their names. Chances are we'll have dozens of xpi's
in our ports collection in just a few months. It would
be a shame if we were to see twice as much ugly
folder names.
If you absolutely like underscores, then go ahead
and use them. But I'd rather s/_// or s/_/-/ or even
use camel notation. Mozilla.org just chose this scheme
for storage, it doesn't really show up anywhere, while
in FreeBSD this is the primary way to address a
port.
Maybe it's worth it to rename adblock_plus and
pdf_download to something else - at maintainer's
discretion, of course.
PORTNAME/PKGNAME don't matter much, we can
change that later (in fact LATEST_LINK uses
${PORTNAME:S/_//g} at the moment).
Also, on a sidenote this whole xpi thing is not perfect
yet, and while we try to ensure that no changes to
the ports are required, it's a good idea to be prepared
to cooperate when we break something.
Thank you very much!
[1] ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/extensions/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420605040529v7717f809m62e51306ce8ef0db>