Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:14:09 -0400 From: Jerry A! <jerry@thehutt.org> To: Joe Kelsey <joek@mail.flyingcroc.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Referendum on the recent Mozilla changes Message-ID: <20020904191409.GA7106@nomad.thehutt.org> In-Reply-To: <3D7647CC.4030805@flyingcroc.net> References: <3D7647CC.4030805@flyingcroc.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:50:04AM -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
: I think you have confused the issue.
:
: > My question is this: would it be better to leave things the way they
: > are, have www/mozilla track the quarterly stable releases, and have
: > www/mozilla-devel track the _latest_ release (e.g. 1.1)? Or, would it
: > be better to do things like the way gcc does it? For example, create
: > a www/mozilla10, www/mozilla11, etc.?
[snip snip]
: I believe that the rational thing is to have www/mozilla track the
: quarterly stable releases (1.1, 1.2, etc.) and to have a special
: vendor-branch for tracking the mozilla.org long-lived 1.0.x branch,
: named however everyone thinks, but www/mozilla10 seems right to me.
I have to agree with Joe on this one. Using the -devel moniker gives
the impression that this is an unstable release, and not the latest
"stable" one to come from the mozilla camp.
Historically, the ports tree versions older versions that may be needed
(eg lang/python vs lang/python15 vs lang/python20). Of course we broke
our own convention by having perl5.8. 8)
--Jerry
Open-Source software isn't a matter of life or death...
...It's much more important than that!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904191409.GA7106>