Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 11:25:11 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+t@aldan.algebra.com> To: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> Cc: gecko@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Restoring seamonkey Message-ID: <fec57122-bd12-2b6b-4bf0-fe02ec7c59f7@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <4ku8-x9zl-wny@FreeBSD.org> References: <857ef528-1dfd-12b6-6579-b03a137ff199@aldan.algebra.com> <wo75-5lf5-wny@FreeBSD.org> <9a797087-e769-3c50-3032-c71b41fab823@aldan.algebra.com> <4ku8-x9zl-wny@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.03.20 20:47, Jan Beich wrote:
> Lack of the homework.
I really don't understand this, Jan... Let's replay:
1. I wanted to install Seamonkey on a system I'm dressing up, and
found, that the port is no longer available.
2. I looked for the final commit-message, and found:
1. it was deleted by you, last year;
2. it was deleted for lack of updates.
3. So, I looked at the upstream's site, and found, that they've made
several releases since then, most recent -- last month.
4. I then wrote you an e-mail inquiring, if the port can be restored...
Do the 2. and the 3. not qualify as "homework"? What more should I have
done before approaching you for comment?
> Patches do the talking better.
So, you're angry at me for not doing the work, which you're trying to
dissuade me from doing in the first place?
> According to SeaMonkey 2.53.1 release notes the engine was updated to
> Firefox 60.2ser with security fixes up to Firefox 72. Current version of
> Firefox is 74 while 75 is expected next week. Finding applicable
> vulnerabilities requires checking the code e.g., trying every fix
> against SeaMonkey tree but assuming some rebase churn.
So, your earlier statement about it still being vulnerable is not based
on any such research, and cannot be substantiated?..
I guess, the port really can be restored...
>>> I'm only opposed on using Mk/bsd.gecko.mk and having gecko@ as the maintainer.
>> I understand the latter, but not the former. As long as gecko@ are not
>> responsible for it, what's wrong with still using bsd.gecko.mk?
> portmgr@ expects ports/ to not break ports maintained by others. Being
> forced to test and avoid breaking bsd.gecko.mk consumers that I don't
> maintain is exhausting.
I understand, what you mean, but do not accept this reasoning. Imagine
sed-, sh-, or awk-maintainers taking the same attitude, for example...
It is part of FreeBSD -- everyone can use it.
> Besides, the file has been planned for removal for months/years due to unnecessarily complicating maintenance.
This is a much better reason...
> See www/cliqz for an example of a Firefox fork that doesn't use bsd.gecko.mk.
Thanks for the pointer, never heard of cliqz before -- will definitely
check out both the browser itself and the port.
Yours,
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fec57122-bd12-2b6b-4bf0-fe02ec7c59f7>