Re: www/firefox-esr instead of www/firefox[0-9]*

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 03:04:59PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> That's a fair point.  But we already have that for firefox, and it's
>> called "firefox".   The issue here is people that want to run an older
>> version on purpose, with a more complicated notion of when to uprade.
>
> The problem with that is that binary packages are produced from stable
> releases of pkgsrc, and it's much easier to backport security updates for
> an ESR release than it is the mainline release. So in practice, they'll
> really be on a certain snapshot of mainline without bug fixes for at
> least 3 months.

I have come around to treating firefox-ESR as its own upstream.  I am
sympathetic to the concerns, but have a long history of being troubled
by renaming, so I'm trying to ask for explanations of what the real
problems are (the cause for needing profile migration is still unclear)
to find a way that works for users without unwarranted churn.

I think we need a concrete plan on the table that addresses the various
situations, including:

  what happens when there is a new release called ESR, in terms of
  updating firefox and firefox-ESR (I sent one earlier - is that the
  right plan?)

  what do we do about superceded ESR releases (rename to firefoxNN, if
  there is a reason to keep it, but in general do not keep?)

  are we in general not going to keep old things that are non-ESR?  (I
  am guessing 52 was ESR)  It seems best to have a plan to have the
  minimal number of extra versions.

and related:

  Why are we keeping 60 still, and how do we get rid of superceded ESR
  versions?