| 1 |
>I will have to stop using it someday, and I won't bother with an |
| 2 |
>overlay. But last time I tried seamonkey it was unstable unreliable |
| 3 |
>junk. What I want to understand is why seamonkey and mozilla can't |
| 4 |
>coexist. They have different names, but even if they didn't, there |
| 5 |
>are slots for apache and apache2, as many different kernels as you |
| 6 |
>could possibly want, and ... mozilla and seamonkey conflict with each |
| 7 |
>other. Why? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You'll be happy to know that the crashiness of seamonkey had been solved |
| 10 |
a couple of months ago. It has been and still is rock solid on my main |
| 11 |
system, my better halfs system and <shudder> my gaming system (Read as |
| 12 |
Windows XP laptop). I've actually had more trouble with FF collapsing |
| 13 |
then with seamonkey. Of course YMMV |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As for you main question. Maybe seamonkey and mozilla clash with each |
| 16 |
other because they are so close to being the same thing. Some dev |
| 17 |
likely looked at it and said that they're too close to bother |
| 18 |
differentiating. Hence your current problem, and the problem I faced |
| 19 |
when seamonkey was first dropped into the ebuild system with nothing |
| 20 |
being built against it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
B Vance |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives