Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:24:00 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey <joek@mail.flyingcroc.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: mozilla-current instead of mozilla-devel Message-ID: <3D78BA80.3080304@flyingcroc.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have no objections to allowing people a reasonable choice of what they want to support as the "official" mozilla release on their systems. To this end, I think that we need three ports: mozilla-stable, mozilla-current and mozilla with a knob to select which of -stable or -current the mozzilla port chooses. I really worry that the -devel tag on mozilla 1.1 is completely incorrect as far as historical port usage goes. So far, there is no indication that mozilla.org will ever actually do anything in the 1.0.x branch that is not directed by Netscape. There is absolutely no word from the Galeon camp that they ever intend to commit to a particular mozilla branch. What else depends on mozilla versioning? Does nautilus care? I know that java (i.e., jdk13) is agnostic about mozilla versioning. So far as I can tell from the responses, there is more support for mozilla as pointing to mozilla1.1 than for it to continue to point to 1.0. I think there is an argument to make mozilla-embedded a completely separate entity, able to point to a different version and not tied to mozilla. In fact, since Galeon1 *requires* a different version of mozilla-embedded, there seems to be a need to make this happen. We have no idea what Galeon2 will require as far as Mozilla goes. Should we declare the referendum over and remove mozilla-devel in favor of a better named port scheme? /Joe 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?3D78BA80.3080304>