Date: 03 Sep 2002 22:51:27 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> Cc: freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Rationale for Mozilla names in ports Message-ID: <1031107887.23744.19.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <1031107294.24794.91.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> References: <1031107294.24794.91.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-EThpB1BA1ML7tTNXDQXY Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 22:41, Joe Kelsey wrote: > OK, I am trying to work out what exactly the rationale was for the > sudden appearance of the misnamed mozilla-devel. The only reason I can > come up with is to support Galeon, which is insufficient reason for > breaking the chain of mozilla.org supported releases. >=20 > If you need to continue to support Galeon until those developers catch > up with mozilla.org, then you need to change the Galeon port to depend > on a newly-created mozilla10 port, allowing the mozilla port to continue > to track mozilla.org official releases. >=20 > mozilla-devel is completely meaningless in the context of mozilla.org > supported releases unless you intend to spend the time tracking *beta* > or *alpha* releases. If no one steps up to the plate to track such > releases, then the mozilla port *should* track the mozilla.org official > releases. >=20 > Please explain why I should break the natural compatability of the > mozilla port with *official* mozilla.org releases with this > mozilla-devel misnomer. I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Take a look at the mozilla.org homepage. It lists both the 1.0 _and_ the 1.1 releases. Look at the description for each: 1.0: "This is our most stable release. Try this if you're new to Mozilla." 1.1: "This is our latest bleeding edge release which contains all the changes that happened on the trunk since we branched for Mozilla 1.0." For this reason, both are in the tree. I opted both the mozilla10/11 and -devel options, and no one objected to either. I went with -devel (which was approved by portmgr@). I did this based on the mozilla.org release page as well as the home page descriptions. If the general consensus is that this was a bad idea, it can certainly be changed. I haven't heard too many objections to what I've done, and I'm open-minded to change. Also, keep in mind that 1.0 is not dead. 1.0.1 should be coming out soon, and will fix bugs that exist in the 1.0 branch. This is another reason to have both ports in the tree. Users opting for more stability may choose to stay with the 1.0 release. Joe >=20 > /Joe >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message >=20 --=20 PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc --=-EThpB1BA1ML7tTNXDQXY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA9dXUvb2iPiv4Uz4cRAiqbAJ9pCdlluNbRf0Mt++Mv56/NC5rmwQCglGbs E2xjkLBUwVLuOG1S7M6gEb8= =nFzs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-EThpB1BA1ML7tTNXDQXY-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031107887.23744.19.camel>