Subject: Re: firefox2 as gecko provider?
To: Geert Hendrickx <ghen@NetBSD.org>
From: Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
Date: 11/15/2006 23:50:06
> When they're conflicting (having the same PKGNAME with a different
> version) then there's no use in installing firefox-2.0 as firefox2
Yep, this was what I wanted to say.
> because they could be installed in parallel
I don't know whether that would be that much of a loss. firefox2
is pretty stable for me, as is firefox1. I'm not using any plugins -
there might be problems that 2.0 doesn't work with something, I
Otoh, having an extra firefox version installed just for the libraries
sucks, and there is the problem that 3rdparty applications don't expect
a "firefox2" binary if they look for a browser in $PATH.
For me, firefox2 is stable. There have been reports about crashes,
in particular from Hubert iirc, but for some strange reasons I didn't
suffer from that yet.