Mono vs. Gecko packaging discrepancies

[Francois Gouget]

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).


-- 
Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com>