Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:47:18 -0500 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> Cc: nork@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/flashpluginwrapper Message-ID: <20040218114718.GU53771@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <20040218112858.GG74292@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> References: <20040218062743.GT53771@toxic.magnesium.net> <20040218112858.GG74292@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (02.18.2004 @ 0628 PST): Simon Barner said, in 1.3K: << > Adam Weinberger wrote: > > Please reconsider removing flashpluginwrapper. I find it ludicrous that > > I should have to manually apply a patch every time I want to update my > > system. As flashpluginwrapper works, there is no harm in allowing it to > > remain in the tree until such time as -STABLE actually support > > linuxpluginwrapper. > > > > This port is not deprecated. It is still of use to those of us who don't > > wish to be manually applying patches to src all the time. > > Hi, > > I think you are referring to the libmap patch, that had to applied > manually to FreeBSD -stable, before libmap had been MFC'ed on Feb 3rd: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/libexec/rtld-elf/libmap.c > > So, I guess that's the reason why flashpluginwrapper was marked > deprecated. Perhaps the comment in the Makefile should be a bit more > verbose and mention that libmap in -stable >= 490102. > > Simon >> end of "Re: www/flashpluginwrapper" from Simon Barner << Heh. gg I absolutely think it should be updated. Additionally, I think that flashpluginwrapper should _still_ not be removed, though. Aren't we supposed to include support for systems older than 2 weeks? # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adam@vectors.cx // adamw@FreeBSD.org // adamw@magnesium.net http://www.vectors.cx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040218114718.GU53771>