On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg(a)gmail.com>:
>>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>>>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org
>>>> "install" to install an extension.
>>>> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
>>> Is it not then better to setup our own instance as in
and just point users to that insteand
>>> of packaging it?
>> What's the point other then duplicated effort?
would contain the "unofficial" ones
There is no such thing, every non mallware extension should be in
(same as addons.mozilla.org
Nazwa : mozilla-adblockplus
Architektura : noarch
Wersja : 1.3.8
Wydanie : 1.fc15
I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole packaging
and repositories concept. Some companies grasp it (I have yum repos
provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and firmwares,
Adobe Flash and Air, Virtualbox...).
Actually, if addons.m.o and extensions.g.o provided yum.repo file,
my point would be moot.
Tomasz Torcz "Funeral in the morning, IDE hacking
xmpp: zdzichubg(a)chrome.pl in the afternoon and evening." - Alan Cox