Comment 11 for bug 306229

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:01:53PM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> On 12/14/2008 12:18 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:34:47AM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> >> On 12/08/2008 02:50 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >>> we should rather rename them upstream. I never understood why folks add
> >>> a prefix even though most work on multiple mozilla xul applications
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >> That would just make that much more work since we have already packaged
> >> them. changing depends it more work than its worth since we have most if
> >> not all packaged (either in archives or ready or being worked on. If one
> >> of them are not any of the above 1 or 2 we can package. I dont like the
> >> idea of fixing each package since we have them.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You are right. Just would like to recall that in case we dont have it
> > packaged we should try to convince upstream (as in debian) to drop
> > this stupid name prefix. If that doesnt work out: maintain on our own
> > and remove the iceweasel stuff.
> >
> > - Alexander
> >
> Since Ubuntu packages more extensions that Debian does why not merge the
> other way like we do with sunbird/lightning, once we have it updated in
> BZR we can push to Debian. That gets rid of naming issues.
> Ours are also updated more often.
>

I think the answer to this is that you are right. we should do that
for extensions that dont exist in debian.

However our bottleneck for this is clearly that we lack debian
uploaders. I think I am currently the only one involved in our team
that can upload there.

I think we should consider to do that still. For that we should target
one or two update batches for debian. Can you assemble a list of
extensions that should go to debian?

 - Alexander