On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, grant beattie wrote:

> > I think we should have only one package per mozilla/netscape compatible
> > plugin. Then have some framework to create symlinks as needed.
> >
> > Symlinks have worked great for me for various modules.
>
> wouldn't this prevent both from being installed and working without
> futzing about with symlinks? I don't see what the gain is, and there's
> certainly a loss.

I am not sure I understand. Any example?

>
> unless there is a conflict of some sort, my preference is always to be
> able to have multiple packages like this installed and working
> simultaneously. the prior art is that we have the acroread plugin
> packages for both Firefox and Mozilla.

But what if you want to use same plugin with Opera(s)? Other installs of
firefox and mozilla and skipstone and konqueror (which should support most
of these plugins) and galeon and navigator and netscape?

I don't think we should have seperate packages for each. And I don't think
we should have the same plugin installed multiple times just because the
user wants to use it with multiple browsers. (For example, my wife uses
konqueror and firefox-gtk2 -- I hope that I could just share the plugins.)

One package can install the plugin and then have some INSTALL script
mechanism that creates symlinks for any plugins when a supported browser
is installed. And updates plugin symlinks whenever a plugin is installed
for all the supported browsers currently installed.

Any plugins that specifically do not work for a certain browser maybe
could be flagged about that.

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
	  	 	 http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/