On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:54:18 -0400
Brandon Mercer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:44:09PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
> > Hi ports@
> >
> > I have been talking with bmercer@ about moving our otter packaging
> > from the beta release (which appears every 6 months) to a weekly
> > package. This move is also applauded by the lead otter-browser
> > developer (stating that weeklies rarely have any regressions).
> > Reasoning for the change in case of OpenBSD.
> >
> > 1. We release every 6 months and it doesn't always align with a new
> > otter beta. Meaning that users have to wait for 6 months or more
> > for a new beta with potential security fixes. Going with weekly
> > snapshots regardless of when the tree is frozen should lead to a
> > quite recent otter browser release.
> >
> > 2. Doing a release every 6 months means that upstream doesn't get
> > it's code tested on OpenBSD until it's too late/almost too late.
> > Having weekly packages would expose problem on OpenBSD earlier.
> >
> > 3. Testing the package will get easier as weekly releases will add
> > functionality in incremental updates versus a code dump every 6
> > months.
> >
> > Notable changes since previous port:
> > - re-ordered one entry in the PLIST
> >
> > Notable changes since version 0.9.10 (app wise):
> > * F12 menu now exposes all modes for Images visibility (including
> > newly added option to show cached images only) and Plugins,
> > * QtWebEngine backend is now capable of saving pages in MIME HTML
> > format and as complete set of files,
> > * new toolbar visibility settings for full screen mode.
>
> I'm in favor of this change. The diff seems good to me but since I'm
> biased it's best if we wait on others for oks.
>
> It was brought up that perhaps there should be a stable and weekly
> port. The dialogue was essentially that people would use the stable
> and never test the weeklies so there would be a lot of duplicate work
> for a rather counterproductive outcome. The weekly releases are the
> best path to track at this time and until it makes sense to do
> otherwise, I think this is the best route because of the reasons
> mentioned above by Adam.
>
> Cheers
>
Bumped to weekly 129. Feedback? OK's?
Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/www/otter-browser/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -r1.13 Makefile
--- Makefile 3 May 2016 15:30:49 -0000 1.13
+++ Makefile 20 Jun 2016 20:36:17 -0000
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
COMMENT = browser aiming to recreate classic Opera (12.x) UI
using Qt5
MASTER_SITES = ${MASTER_SITE_SOURCEFORGE:=otter-browser/}
-DISTNAME = otter-browser-0.9.10
+DISTNAME = otter-browser-0.9.11-dev129
EXTRACT_SUFX = .tar.bz2
Index: distinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/www/otter-browser/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.10 distinfo
--- distinfo 3 May 2016 15:30:49 -0000 1.10
+++ distinfo 20 Jun 2016 20:36:17 -0000
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-SHA256 (otter-browser-0.9.10.tar.bz2) =
aeL0ZBGx268N4oaXtOPfjHwmg3TbPR8SqWP8PdapqPw=
-SIZE (otter-browser-0.9.10.tar.bz2) = 2295819
+SHA256 (otter-browser-0.9.11-dev129.tar.bz2) =
mwfq2hjHHJgjT9Jrv2jCD6R1tJoSEFxp37DWQe2GluA=
+SIZE (otter-browser-0.9.11-dev129.tar.bz2) = 2310570
Index: pkg/PLIST
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/www/otter-browser/pkg/PLIST,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 PLIST
--- pkg/PLIST 3 May 2016 15:30:49 -0000 1.6
+++ pkg/PLIST 20 Jun 2016 20:36:17 -0000
@@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser
share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_sr.qm
share/otter-browser/locale/[email protected]
share/otter-browser/locale/[email protected]
-share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_sv.qm
share/otter-browser/locale/[email protected]
+share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_sv.qm
share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_tr.qm
share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_uk.qm
share/otter-browser/locale/otter-browser_zh_CN.qm
