From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Sep 7 16: 7: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5041737B400; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gate.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0069143E4A; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:06:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from 64-144-229-193.client.dsl.net ([64.144.229.193] helo=[192.168.0.13]) by gate.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nofK-000Ooa-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 16:06:58 -0700 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 16:06:56 -0700 From: Pat Lashley To: Joe Marcus Clarke , 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> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86 Demo) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="==========256366295==========" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --==========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 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