From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Jul 24 20: 5:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from home.bsdclub.org (home.bsdclub.org [202.227.26.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CEC37B696; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:05:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sada@bsdclub.org) Received: (from sada@localhost) by home.bsdclub.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id MAA06332; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:05:46 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:05:46 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200007250305.MAA06332@home.bsdclub.org> To: trevor@jpj.net Cc: girgen@partitur.se, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@NUXI.com, lioux@uol.com.br, asami@FreeBSD.ORG, sada@bsdclub.org Subject: Re: Kill Netscape us ports and version 4.08. (was Re: Netscapebrowsers us versions avail. abroad) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:33:11 -0400 (EDT)". From: SADA Kenji Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: mnews [version 1.22] 1999-12/19(Sun) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article trevor@jpj.net writes: >> > As my afterthought, duplication of same (large!) netscape packages >> > in different (us and plain) name would not be good for ftp mirror sites >> > and cdrom disributions. >> >> I didn't see anything saying we're allowed to redistribute the Netscape >> browsers. Sections 3(iii) and 10 in the license say we can't. I left a >> RESTRICTED line to prevent package-building and archiving. There is a fact that FreeBSD CD-ROM and ftp mirror sites are already redistributing netscape binaries. As long as I remember, this permission is obtained from Netscape inc. by HOSOKAWA Tatsumi but now I couldn't give you any evidence with this. Please wait, I'm trying to clearify those circumstances. >> > So I propose to kill bsdi/linux-netscape-4.7-us JUST NOW >> > and grade up those 47-c/n ports to 4.74. >> > Girgen, Trevor, are you okay with this? >> >> Earlier you wrote: >> >> I'm planning to use c/n-v474-us.x86-unknown-freebsd.tar.gz >> as distfiles of www/netscape47-c/n ports. >> >> and it sounds like you still want the same thing. You didn't explain why, >> so I'm guessing either it's to save users from having to type ".us" or >> it's because the "export" versions are already set up for automated >> fetching. It is because the browser binaries now Netscape inc. is distributing as "{communicator,navigator}-v474-us.*.tar.gz" is NOT the "us" restricted version, but almost world wide usable software. I don't want to add ".us" option to those ports, and I'm convinced that Girgen and Obrien agreed with this concept. Is this misunderstanding? >> David O'Brien already updated the FreeBSD ".us" ports and I've >> sent in an update for the BSDI ones, so it's only on the Linux ones where >> work could be saved. As for shortening the names by replacing one port >> with another, we can do that any time. Like I said, I'd like there to be >> an "export" version--or several--left alone or downgraded to 4.72, for the >> few users who might still want such a thing. Eventually, the "export" >> ones should probably be removed, but it needn't be just now. Once we commit a package-buildable port, those package files would be created and be mirrored into all ftp sites. Removing them is hand-work of each sites' maintainers. Actually I've had to argue with Obrien before he committed his ports. Meanwhile your bsdi-4.74 ports have not committed yet, so we have chance to reduce ftp-sites' load. Of cource I agree with your concept of 4.72 ports, but I guess thoese ports should be divided as independent ports (I named "n472-c/n") for special purpose for users stay in some countries where exportation is controlled with strong encription. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message