I noticed a number of discrepencies in the way the Gecko and Mono addons are packaged:
* One uses ...<arch>-<version>... the other ...<version>-<arch>... * One uses .bz2 files, the other .gz. * For one the tar file must be extracted to "../<addon>", for the other just "../". * One stores the source in ...<addon>-<version>.tar*, the other in ...<addon>-<version>-src.tar*.
None of this is major but it just makes writing scripts that deal with addons a pain for seemingly no good reason. Could we standardize?
After reviewing the differences I think I prefer the way Gecko does things:
* bzip2 is pretty widely adopted and compresses better so I'd standardize on that. I'd be game for xz or even zstd too (xz is one of the formats used for the Linux kernel tarballs so maybe it's mainstream enough).
* Putting the 'architecture' last makes it easier to build the tar filename from the directory name. So I would standardize on wine-<addon>-<version><arch>.tar.bz2. And I'd treat the source as yet another architecture. That would give: wine-mono-4.9.4-src.tar.bz2 wine-mono-4.9.4-bin.tar.bz2 or wine-mono-4.9.4.tar.bz2 like the msi file or wine-mono-4.9.4-all.tar.bz2 in Debian fashion wine-gecko-2.47.1-src.tar.bz2 wine-gecko-2.47.1-x86.tar.bz2 wine-gecko-2.47.1-x86_64.tar.bz2
* For the directory where to extract the file I prefer '../<addon>/' because that matches the directory for msi files. Also it makes it easier to create a symlink to that directory and not have to update it when a new version is released (my Wine build directories are not all in the same location).