| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Conway S. Smith wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hey list, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm thinking about switching from the Mozilla/Seamonkey suite to |
| 8 |
> Thunderbird for my email client. And in the Portage tree it's got both |
| 9 |
> mozilla-thunderbird & mozilla-thunderbird-bin, similar to Firefox. Now |
| 10 |
> with Firefox there's all the 32-bit plugin issues, so most of us (of |
| 11 |
> course not Duncan ;-) probably have & use both firefox & firefox-bin, |
| 12 |
> but with Thunderbird, are there really any reasons we'd need a 32-bit |
| 13 |
> version installed? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I guess the only reason for mozilla-firefox-in is the one it was |
| 16 |
originally started: it can take ages to compile these packages on a |
| 17 |
low-end machine. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Also, does anyone know if they could both be |
| 20 |
> installed & play well w/ each other, the way firefox does? I'd guess |
| 21 |
> they would, but if not I'd rather know before-hand. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
thunderbird and thunderbird-bin aren't blocking each other, so I'd |
| 24 |
guess they won't get into each others way. rhunderbird-bin gets |
| 25 |
installed to /opt, I don't see a problem in having them both installed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iD8DBQFEzAoH6q4f+IV6B/wRAotEAJ9yuq6y/hv+t58aVp1he4RR+niq4wCfRyuz |
| 31 |
IRaMlKitTDYnid5j5AI89mA= |
| 32 |
=AhJG |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives