Packing XPIs

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:55:18AM +0200, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 10:08 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Maybe there's enough firefox extensions to package a SIG dedicated to
> > defining extension packaging standards is in order?
> 
> I'd prefer if the standard just said "do not do it" :) 

This is not something that should be in the scope of the guidelines.
Guidelines should be as less as possible about what to package, but
about how (of course there is the legal stuff).
 
> some extensions will still be nice in Fedora. 

This is pretty inconsistent, isn't it? If there is to be some extensions
in fedora, and some things have to be in guidelines, they should be.

In any case I can't see what is different between a firefox extension
and any other software in fedora. A reviewer can always (and should) 
question the relevance to add a package to fedora if the package has a 
bad record or security issues, or even a bad design and so on and so forth, 
but it doesn't need anything to be in the guideliens for that. 

Also users are not forced to install anything.

> "A way to automate extension installation (from commandline)"?

Much inferior solution than 'package what should be packaged', in my
opinion.

--
Pat