Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:38:36 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linux gnome libraries etc. Message-ID: <96741075@bs1.sp34.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080214194358.5cjdxcll0gook8o8@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:43:58 %2B0100") References: <20080213224717.GA59146@freebsd.org> <53884346@ipt.ru> <20080214091408.GA82434@freebsd.org> <43157302@serv3.int.kfs.ru> <20080214194358.5cjdxcll0gook8o8@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:43:58 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:35:21 +0300): > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:14:08 +0100 Roman Divacky wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:41:09AM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > >> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:47:17 +0100 Roman Divacky wrote: > >> > > >> > > I noticed that linux-pango is version 1.10 (latest is 1.18), > >> > > linux-glib2 is 2.6 (latest is 2.14) etc. etc. > >> > > >> > linux-glib2 is glib2-2.6.6-1, the lastest available for FedoraCore-4: > >> > > >> http://mirror.eas.muohio.edu/fedora/linux/core/updates/4/i386/glib2-2.6.6-1.i386.rpm > >> > > >> > > I tried to run firefox 3 beta 3 under linux emulation and > >> > > it crashed because of some missing symbol in pango and I think > >> > > its because our linux-pango is really outdated and does not > >> > > meet the minimal requirements for firefox3. > >> > > >> > > why havent these ports been updated? > >> > > >> > The port won't ever be updated. More likely a new port, say > >> > linux-f7-glib2 will appear after the default osrelease is switched > >> > to 2.6.x. > I'm not happy with creating a new port, but maybe it is the only good > solution we can do. I didn't think much about installing a different > version depending on the default linux port, but I don't like this > idea much, as it may result in a nightmare. Informed opinions (with a > list of bad things and why it doesn't matter) in favour of this are > welcome. So far I know one idea why it looks bad to me (to have one port) and why I prefer to speak about two ports (actually it means dubbling all linux infrastructure ports): . we won't have packages for non-defaults. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96741075>