Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:20:24 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: A mozilla lite port. Message-ID: <3C6AAE68.746E3DAD@FreeBSD.org> References: <B88FCFE9.608F%ade@FreeBSD.org> <3C6A7682.75FBE52@FreeBSD.org> <20020213165730.A54758@shale.csir.co.za> <3C6A83B1.CFF9DE30@FreeBSD.org> <20020213200251.A55468@shale.csir.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Lea wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 05:18:09PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Doesn't look like a good idea to me, because then user who wants to > > build both mozilla and mozilla-embedded would have to build mozilla > > twice, as obviously mozilla and mozilla-litle couldn't share the same > > WRKSRC due to different configure-time settings. > > Hmmm. Why would you build mozilla (or mozilla-lite) for that matter and > mozilla-embedded? mozilla-embedded is a subset of mozilla (or > mozilla-lite). Someone who updates or debugs mozilla ports will have to build both mozilla and mozilla-embedded. Since mozilla-lite IMO would be an optional port maintained outside of the FreeBSD GNOME I'd vote for keeping mozilla-embedded to be slave of the main mozilla port. > The port's which use mozilla-embedded only really want Gecko, and there > should be no functional difference there between mozilla and > mozilla-lite. Yes, but from the POV of people maintaining mozilla/mozilla-embedded/mozilla-headers this really makes a difference (1 huge build vs. 2x1 huge build) and I think that their interests should be respected as well. > Anyway, enough email. Patches will be forthcoming... Will see. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C6AAE68.746E3DAD>