Subject: Re: firefox2 as gecko provider?
To: Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
From: Geert Hendrickx <ghen@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/22/2006 10:18:14
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:50:06PM +0100, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> ghen@NetBSD.org said:
> > When they're conflicting (having the same PKGNAME with a different
> > version) then there's no use in installing firefox-2.0 as firefox2
> > anymore
> 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 don't know.
> 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.
I'll change the www/firefox2* packages to register themselves as firefox-2.0
instead of firefox2-2.0 and make the paths and executables "firefox" instead
of "firefox2" as well. That will make the packages conflicting so I can add
the pkg_config files to the firefox2 package.
Nothing of this will affect the 1.5.0.x packages, you will only lose the
ability to install firefox 1.5.0.x and 2.0 in parallel.
Same for wip/thunderbird2.