handling extensions in a canonical (no pun intended)

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Friday 12 June 2009 9:02:51 pm Remco wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Mackenzie Morgan<macoafi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 12 June 2009 3:05:14 pm Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >> Heya
> >>
> >> This reminds me of per-user installed deb's (not supported) vs global
> >> install's which clog up every users. For one in Ubuntu we have e.g.
> >> plugins OOo in the repo. But if you install them there is no option
> >> for unpriviledged users to disable it =/ it's just gray in OO.o
> >
> > I don't believe that's the case with Mozilla applications.  If you install 
a
> > Firefox extension from the package manager right now, it is still possible 
for
> > a user to disable it within their own local Firefox while still keeping it
> > installed system-wide.
> 
> You mention something that the Patrick seems to miss: Ubuntu already
> has packages in the repositories for Firefox. This could be done for
> many other programs too (and probably has been for some). But, that
> would put a LOT of strain on packagers. Firefox alone has thousands of
> extensions, managed by Mozilla.

Well at least for just the dictionaries, it seems they should be packaged.  
Those are rather important.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20090612/82c4446c/attachment.sig>