Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 16:06:56 -0700 From: Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CONCLUSION] What to do about Mozilla Message-ID: <3703892704.1031440015@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> In-Reply-To: <1031382538.46865.1.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <1031382538.46865.1.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========256366295========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On Saturday, September 07, 2002 03:08:58 AM -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke=20 <marcus@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > After listening to feedback, both on the list as well as direct, I think > I'm going to leave things the way they are for now. I'm doing this for > a number of reasons. One, Mozilla is a huge port, and the fewer > sweeping changes made, the better. Two, right now there are only two > releases. If Mozilla wants to keep branching and supporting branches, > we can change things later. Three, I've updated the pkg-descr's of both > ports to accurately reflect their descriptions as listed at > mozilla.org. Four, this change really hasn't confused that many > people. People that want to use Mozilla 1.1 are still doing so despite > the -devel label. But both mozilla and mozilla-devel use the PORTNAME 'mozilla'. Which means that the -devel versions don't show up in the index. And that portupgrade will automatically downgrade a mozilla(-devel)-1.1,1=20 installation to 1.0_2,1. (And similarly for the mozilla-*-devel ports.) So if you're going to stick with this scheme, at least finish the job. Add '-devel' to the mozilla*-devel PORTNAMEs and bump their portepoch to match the non-devel versions. I know you're mind is made up on this; but my reading of the Mozilla site and their roadmap would suggest that it would have been better to have the mozilla* ports track the 1.1, 1.2, etc releases and to have a set of mozilla-stable or mozilla10 ports to stick with the older release. But whichever way it is split, they need to have distinct PORTNAMEs; and some mechanism needs to be in place to indicate to dependant ports which one is preferrred. -Pat --==========256366295========== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9eoaQncYNbLD8wuMRAn48AKCh/j064DlkIdifgZPFox7leKMsqgCdFUaf t3cnn/qoZ1RCGaByj7HQnwo= =LZX8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==========256366295==========-- 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?3703892704.1031440015>