On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 15 July 2008 13:42:19 Brandon Mercer wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > On 2008/07/15 13:07, Mike Erdely wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:37:13PM +0100, Edd wrote: >> >> > Whats the status of firefox 3 on OpenBSD? >> >> > >> >> > I have been using a package (given to me from viq, which i assume is >> >> > made from this patch), which has crashed once in about 3 days. Thats >> >> > about normal for firefox in my experience. >> >> > >> >> > I do notice a fair speedup. >> >> >> >> Like others, I see a fair speed up and I have only seen crashes with >> >> self-signed certificates. >> > >> > From some of the feedback I've heard, it doesn't entirely ready to >> > replace 2.x yet. I also note that upstream are not yet suggesting it >> > as an automatic upgrade for 2.x users. >> > >> > I wouldn't oppose having both versions in tree, but wouldn't be too >> > happy having 3.0 as the only Firefox version for the coming release. >> >> Agreed, the proper course should be to have both until the time comes >> to do away with 2.x >> Brandon > > IMO this is not realistic. We either stick with 2.x or go with 3.x, but not > create a mess with both.
Lets see what this patch that comes through does for things. If you don't want to have both in ports then we should focus on fixing the 3.0 stuff so that it's stable. I enjoy having my RAM back :). Brandon
