| 1 |
felix@×××××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> I will have to stop using it someday, and I won't bother with an |
| 3 |
> overlay. But last time I tried seamonkey it was unstable unreliable |
| 4 |
> junk. What I want to understand is why seamonkey and mozilla can't |
| 5 |
> coexist. They have different names, but even if they didn't, there |
| 6 |
> are slots for apache and apache2, as many different kernels as you |
| 7 |
> could possibly want, and ... mozilla and seamonkey conflict with each |
| 8 |
> other. Why? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
From my understanding (I might be wrong here though) it is quite an |
| 11 |
amount of work to go from "only Mozilla & Firefox" to "Mozilla, |
| 12 |
Seamonkey and Firefox". The point is not the installation of these |
| 13 |
packages but the dozens of packages that use some part of |
| 14 |
Mozilla/FF/Seamonkey during compilation / runtime. Considering the |
| 15 |
workload of the devs maintaining Mozilla packages in Gentoo it's not a |
| 16 |
"they cannot get along for technical reasons" but a "doing this isn't |
| 17 |
worth the effort as Mozilla is leaving sooner rather than later" |
| 18 |
decision. The situation with all three packages in the tree is only |
| 19 |
relatively short-lived (a couple of months), Mozilla is deprecated for |
| 20 |
security reasons, Seamonkey considered a drop-in replacement. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm sorry it doesn't work for you like it should (I'm a Firefox user |
| 23 |
myself), but I don't think this situation will change... |
Archives