On 29.03.20 15:13, Jan Beich wrote:
"Mikhail T." <m...@aldan.algebra.com> writes:
4. I then wrote you an e-mail inquiring, if the port can be restored...
Did you try to build 2.53.1 before writing the email?
No, of course not -- not anticipating such reaction, I thought, I'd ask
first...
Do the 2. and the 3. not qualify as "homework"? What more should I
have done before approaching you for comment?
Work with upstream to fix FreeBSD-specific regressions e.g.,
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1437670
And this work would've made you less angry at me asking about Seamonkey?
Patches do the talking better.
So, you're angry at me for not doing the work, which you're trying to
dissuade me from doing in the first place?
If you don't use bsd.gecko.mk then the revived www/seamonkey wouldn't
complicate maintenance of www/firefox + mail/thunderbird.
Your response does not seem to address the question posed...
I'm not a security researcher and don't have access to restricted bugs.
Here're a few candidates from a cursory look:
Oh, wow, that's pretty bad, Ok... Does not the collection, however,
argue in support of having fewer libxuls in the tree -- ideally, just
one, but, maybe, two? So that there are fewer ports to patch for each
CVE affecting all of them?
My understanding of Mozilla is, Firefox really is there flagship
project, with most developers working on -- and targeting Windows.
Everybody else -- Thunderbird and the browser-forks -- are poor
relatives, which just lack the resources to keep up with changes to the
(formerly) shared parts of the tree.
That is, FreeBSD will not be /diverging /from the upstream by patching
them to work with the Firefox' pieces, our patches will be helping them
catch up...
I'll try it here -- maybe, it is not that difficult, actually... Yours,
-mi
_______________________________________________
freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gecko
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gecko-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
