Re: Versioning rust (firefox91 again)

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 09:36, Leonardo Taccari <leot%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> pin writes:
> > [...]
> > > Things will get better once the language stabilizes, or even gets
> > > standartizized. But as we have seen with the recent C and C++ std
> > > versions discussion, non-dead languages always are able to introduce
> > > some kind of versioning pain in the real world.
> >
> > True, I just don't see an EOL web-browser as the reason for versioning.
> >
> > As mentioned already, I understand keeping some applications for users.
> > I wouldn't think it's bad to keep a minor application that has a dead upstream
> > or, that has been EOL. But, a web-browser is a different story, it's a security
> > risk.
> > [...]
>
> www/firefox91 is the last version that still works for screen
> recording.
>
> Please see PR pkg/56955 (last time I've tried also www/firefox has the
> same problems and that makes both www/firefox102 and www/firefox
> unusable in such contexts).

Thanks - that's good to know, I'll add a comment to the firefox91
Makefile for anyone reading in future

David