On Tuesday 15 July 2008 15:00:27 Martynas Venckus wrote: > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 15 21:15:32 2008 > > From: Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Brandon Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0 > > User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 > > Cc: Edd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ports@openbsd.org > > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Content-Disposition: inline > > X-comstyle-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more > > information X-MailScanner-ID: 4D88E98467.BABAF > > X-comstyle-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > X-comstyle-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > X-Loop: ports@openbsd.org > > Precedence: bulk > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 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. > > There's nothing wrong with having it in tree. > > I think the best way to handle this was suggested by pval, a while > ago. Import it (www/mozilla-firefox3, or www/mozilla-firefox-devel), > but not link to the builds yet. > > When we decide it's stable enough, reimport as www/mozilla-firefox. > > This would be easier both for me to work on further, and for people > to test.
Has anyone actually tested FF2 with newer NSPR/NSS to make sure there are no compatability issues? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
