Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:59:17 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 251117] [NEW PORT] www/palemoon: Open-source web browser Message-ID: <bug-251117-7788-LO9a866Dv6@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-251117-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-251117-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D251117 --- Comment #91 from Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr> --- Upstream has plans to remove BSD-related-support. They've already dropped support for MacOS a few months ago, and are planning to proceed with the re= st (the extent of which I don't know precisely). So they would like to be sure that the initial issues that prevented the po= rt to go in are not going to pop again later before considering revising these plans. (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #61) (In reply to Tobias C. Berner from comment #67) > It it well-known that many ports forgo un-bundling dependencies, > particularly those that are excruciatingly complex, bundle custom/tailored > patched dependency versions, or naturally vendor those dependencies for > specific reasons where the ports versions are unsuitable or incompatible. Is this officially backed-up by portmgr@? > portmgr@ does not see a reason to block it [1]. What did lead to this decision after so much time? Only the arguments prese= nted here? Changes of plan from portmgr@ (regarding BUNDLE_LIBS, or something el= se)? Is this decision perennial? Sorry for being so procedural, but I need to now in order to avoid future problems and drama as much as possible, and because importing this probably makes no sense if upstream indeed drops BSD support. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-251117-7788-LO9a866Dv6>