Date: 08 Sep 2002 02:08:38 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> To: Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CONCLUSION] What to do about Mozilla Message-ID: <1031465323.644.13.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <3703892704.1031440015@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> References: <1031382538.46865.1.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3703892704.1031440015@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 19:06, Pat Lashley wrote: > --On Saturday, September 07, 2002 03:08:58 AM -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke > <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 > 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. This problem should be fixed now if you make sure the origin pointed to in your +CONTENTS file is correct. Both pkg_version and portupgrade report no problems on my mozilla laptop, or my mozilla-devel desktop. Joe > > > > -Pat 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?1031465323.644.13.camel>