Hi everybody, I discovered at least two ports, which need a recompile after update: apache and ruby and all other ports which where linked to libgdbm. We should increase the release number of these two ports, so everybody knows the need for a recompile. Two more questions: who wants to maintain the mozilla port in the future? And what will we do with the mozilla-flash-plugin? One port with files for firebird and mozilla or one port for mozilla and one port for firebird? Bye Martin -- martin opel / fachbereich informatik - fachhochschule regensburg / email: martin.opel@informatik.fh-regensburg.de / web: http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~opel/ / phone: +49 941 943-1336, fax: +49 941 943-1426
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:09, Martin Opel wrote:
Hi everybody, Hi Martin,
Two more questions: who wants to maintain the mozilla port in the future? I suggest to use the existing mozilla2 port (maybe rename it to mozilla?). I know it uses gtk2 instead of gtk1, but it could be a good temp solution (until firebird reaches 1.0 and mozilla is replaced by it, if I understand well). Just an idea.
And what will we do with the mozilla-flash-plugin? One port with files for firebird and mozilla or one port for mozilla and one port for firebird?
I have the same "problem" here with the acrobat reader plugin. I'd prefer to have separate ports, in order to avoid installation of unnecessary files. Btw, is it more CRUX-ish to have the acroread port install the plugins (if moz and/or firebird are found) or creating a separate firebird-acroread-plugin port? I saw some port manipulates the .footprint file (ie ghostscript). Is this our standard way? (just to know) Regards, simone
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Simone Rota wrote: Hi Simone, hi everybody [...]
I saw some port manipulates the .footprint file (ie ghostscript). Is this our standard way? (just to know)
I think, it shouldn't. The reason for doing this in the ghostscript port was, that I don't want it dependent on cups. I guess, many people needs ghostscript to view postscript and pdf files but don't need any printing stuff. And, to be honest, I'm a lprng fan ;) Greetings Jürgen -- juergen.daubert@t-online.de
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:09:38AM +0100, Martin Opel wrote:
Hi everybody,
I discovered at least two ports, which need a recompile after update: apache and ruby and all other ports which where linked to libgdbm.
We should increase the release number of these two ports, so everybody knows the need for a recompile.
Done, increased release number by one for apache and ruby. Greetings Jürgen -- juergen.daubert@t-online.de
participants (3)
-
Juergen.Daubert＠t-online.de -
Martin Opel -
Simone Rota