> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 15 20:59:15 2008 > From: Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Edd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ports@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0 > Mail-Followup-To: Edd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ports@openbsd.org > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) > X-MailScanner-ID: 0C4CA208335.59917 > X-DMAT-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-DMAT-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Loop: ports@openbsd.org > Precedence: bulk > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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.
Of course not. FF3 was not tested enough.
