Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:49:18 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> To: josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es (Jose M Rodriguez) Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mozilla vs. nspr Message-ID: <200501031449.j03EnIiq067387@corbulon.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <41D9079A.4040506@redesjm.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >However, can't the devel/nspr be brought up to date instead? Having each
> >port install its own seems wrong and will lead to the "DLL hell" often
> >found on Microsoft systems...
> really, this is make nss works with AVIARY-1.0 nspr. Or not?
>
> Also, I'm really thinking about make a www/mre with the shared
> components (at a first try, from firefox or mozilla), populate
> ${prefix}/lib/mre/mre-1.0/ and use this from firefox/mozilla/thunderbird.
>
> This may be of interest?
I'm not familiar with the particular ports you list, but yes, keeping
pieces like nspr shared improves the ports collection. Quite possibly,
things like xpcom need to be separated out and shared too. This would
give reduced confusion, smaller packages, shorter build-times, and
quicker propagation of fixes.
Some application vendors tend to bundle dependent things together for
the sake of users on not-so-tidy systems (like Solaris or some Linux
distros). A better system, such as FreeBSD, needs to gently oppose this
trend, IMO :-)
The worst example of what I dislike is currently OpenOffice, which
bundles together everything from dmake, to stlport, to expat, to Python,
to mozilla (I'm trying to fix that). They would've included Java as
well, I'm sure, had Sun not have the wisdom to explicitly prohibit that
in its license :-)
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501031449.j03EnIiq067387>