Draft Mozilla extension packaging policy

[Guido Günther]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:09:39PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 04:00:57PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > [..snip..] 
> > > > Does this make sense? If so I'll add this to the wiki as start of an
> > > > extensions policy.
> > > 
> > > This sounds good to me, and maybe it's enough of a change to every
> > > single existing package that everyone can be equally grumpy about it ;)
> > > The rationale does a good job of outlining the reasons why this
> > > standardization would be useful.
> > > 
> > > I'd say we should start it up on the wiki as a draft of a proposed
> > > extensions policy.
> > 
> > I've added this here:
> > 
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMozExtTeam#PolicyforpackagingXULbasedapplications
> > 
> > > Is there anyone not on this list who we should explicitly ask to look at
> > > the draft once it's published in a canonical spot?
> > Added as cc: 
> > 
> > Dear Mozilla maintainers, we'd be happy to get some feedback on the
> > above policy draft.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> 
> I am a bit confused about the title; you say its about XUL based
> Applications, but then the document is about xul based
> _extensions_. Maybe change the paragraph title. Do we need a special
> packaging policy for xul applications too?
Fixed now:

http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianMozExtTeam#PolicyforpackagingextensionsforXULbasedapplications

Most people that answered didn't like xul-ext-<ext> and
/usr/{share,lib}/xul-extensions too much but there weren't any other
naming suggestions. So I think we should settle with this and move
packages over to the new scheme.
Cheers,
 -- Guido