From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 10 06:50:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056B716A41F for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:50:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (koyukuk.teamcool.net [209.161.34.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E45543D45 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:50:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id A747211EB1 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:50:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cochise.teamcool.net (unknown [192.168.1.57]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (TeamCool Rocks) with ESMTP id 6E7BF11EA4 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:50:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:50:42 -0600 From: Ken Gunderson To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20050810005042.02b0a1d2.kgunders@teamcool.net> In-Reply-To: <200508100427.j7A4RcKi088850@blue.virtual-estates.net> References: <200508100427.j7A4RcKi088850@blue.virtual-estates.net> Organization: Teamcool Networks X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.12 (GTK+ 2.6.7; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: 64-bit firefox X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:50:49 -0000 On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:27:38 -0400 (EDT) "Mikhail T." wrote: > After a rather ungratifying exchange with some of the prominent Mozilla > project members, here is my conclusion. > > The "old" firefox-1.x is not expected to run on amd64. Lucky you, if it > does. The code for the branch was forked a long time ago (circa April > 2004, AFAIK) and only "security fixes" get merged into it. > > Do not bother submitting patches -- you will be yelled at > unceremoniously for wasting developers' time with patches against an > obsolete version and accused of other misdemeanors. > > The upcoming version of the browser -- "Deer Park", a.k.a. 1.5 -- > currently in alpha2, is supposed to come off the trunk of their > cvs tree, which already contains a lot of bug-fixes, including > 64bit-specific ones, but these will NOT be merged into the firefox-1.x > branch. > > Those fixes aren't great -- "long", for example, is used in lieu of > "intptr_t" (MSVC is not C99-compliant, so screw you), but they just > happen to work for now. > > I think, we need to concentrate on porting this new Deer Park version > (www/deerpark ?) in preferance of the current (www/firefox). Although > alpha, it, apparently, has a better chance of working right on our > "unusual" set of platforms. > > The 1.5 release is expected in September. > > Those wanting a stabler browser right now ought to use linux-firefox, > opera, or konqueror. > > Comments? > > -mi Use Galeon or Epiphany? I'm of the general opinion that, while FF is a godsend for M$ clients, it pretty much sucks on *nix. I don't know the 64 bit status of those browsers but I suspect you'll b get more cooperation. Your's is far from the first complaint I've heard regarding the FF team's arrogance. Epiphany and Galeon are both workable solutions, so why bother w/FF and being treated poorly? My $0.02... Worth about what you paid for it... -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?