On 28.03.20 20:47, Jan Beich wrote:
Lack of the homework.
I really don't understand this, Jan... Let's replay:
1. I wanted to install Seamonkey on a system I'm dressing up, and
found, that the port is no longer available.
2. I looked for the final commit-message, and found:
1. it was deleted by you, last year;
2. it was deleted for lack of updates.
3. So, I looked at the upstream's site, and found, that they've made
several releases since then, most recent -- last month.
4. I then wrote you an e-mail inquiring, if the port can be restored...
Do the 2. and the 3. not qualify as "homework"? What more should I have
done before approaching you for comment?
Patches do the talking better.
So, you're angry at me for not doing the work, which you're trying to
dissuade me from doing in the first place?
According to SeaMonkey 2.53.1 release notes the engine was updated to
Firefox 60.2ser with security fixes up to Firefox 72. Current version of
Firefox is 74 while 75 is expected next week. Finding applicable
vulnerabilities requires checking the code e.g., trying every fix
against SeaMonkey tree but assuming some rebase churn.
So, your earlier statement about it still being vulnerable is not based
on any such research, and cannot be substantiated?..
I guess, the port really can be restored...
I'm only opposed on using Mk/bsd.gecko.mk and having gecko@ as the maintainer.
I understand the latter, but not the former. As long as gecko@ are not
responsible for it, what's wrong with still using bsd.gecko.mk?
portmgr@ expects ports/ to not break ports maintained by others. Being
forced to test and avoid breaking bsd.gecko.mk consumers that I don't
maintain is exhausting.
I understand, what you mean, but do not accept this reasoning. Imagine
sed-, sh-, or awk-maintainers taking the same attitude, for example...
It is part of FreeBSD -- everyone can use it.
Besides, the file has been planned for removal for months/years due to
unnecessarily complicating maintenance.
This is a much better reason...
See www/cliqz for an example of a Firefox fork that doesn't use bsd.gecko.mk.
Thanks for the pointer, never heard of cliqz before -- will definitely
check out both the browser itself and the port.
Yours,
-mi
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gecko
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
