amd64 version of Opera
itetcu at FreeBSD.org
Sun Mar 16 15:24:52 UTC 2008
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:57:48 +0100
"Arjan van Leeuwen" <arjanl at opera.com> wrote:
> Op Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:27:51 +0100 schreef Ion-Mihai Tetcu
> <itetcu at freebsd.org>:
> > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:49:34 -0400
> > Ken Smith <kensmith at cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
> >> Someone (cough Dan cough) noticed me saying on IRC one of the things I
> >> missed after shifting my home machine from i386 to amd64 was Opera. He
> >> pointed me at this:
> >> http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/snapshot-1834/amd64-freebsd/
> > This is the new beta release for 9.5 series and it's the first to
> > feature amd64 support for both FreeBSD and linux; it also drops support
> > for FreeBSD 4.
> It's not even a beta; it's a development snapshot, something we try to
> release every week (or as often as time permits) on the desktop team blog
> (http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/). The difference is that snapshots do
> not receive the QA that 'real' betas get, they're basically just builds
> coming straight from our development branches.
My bad, thanks for the correction.
> >> which it turned out was very simple to install (I needed to build
> >> x11-toolkits/qt33, and just ran the install.sh that was packaged in the
> >> Opera download).
> > Seems they didn't do a static build for i386.
> s/i386/amd64/, indeed :).
> We have yet to see what we'll do with the whole
> static/dynamic build thing; right now we have so many builds (not just
> FreeBSD, think Linux and Solaris on various architectures as well) that
> testing all of them takes up a lot of resources in QA, and we'd like to
> have less builds. For now, we'll only do shared builds for FreeBSD/amd64.
On i386 I have run both without noticeable difference (I remember one
of the was slightly faster).
I don't see any problem with dropping static builds, but you might want
to check with our KDE people and see how they plan to do with qt4
(AFAIK we'll be able to have both installed).
> >> He suggested I send this to see if someone familiar with the Opera ports
> >> would be interested in packaging this up into a real port.
> > Well, the best idea then it to CC the port maintainer, which I did on
> > this email ;-)
> > In this I case I'm sure he knows about it, seeing that he works for
> > Opera :) Maybe the -devel port we be resurrected ;-)
> Yeah, I know :). I've been a bit hesitant in the past about resurrecting
> the -devel port, considering the developmental nature of the snapshots and
> the fact that the port would need a (simple) update almost every week. But
> if there's demand, we always welcome more testers :). Having FreeBSD 7 and
> amd64 builds out there is of course a big plus.
So what? Yell about it in pre-everything:: and pkg-message. It will
give you some early real-world testing.
Personally I won't run a snapshot (except if asked) since I relay on
Opera much to much:
95562 itetcu 1 44 19 163M 155M select 0 113:55 0.00% operapluginwrapper
95442 itetcu 1 44 0 96956K 81628K select 0 113:00 0.00% opera
95560 itetcu 1 8 0 96956K 81628K nanslp 1 39:07 0.00% opera
5 windows (about 100 tabs) in the native version and one window (about
20 tabs) in the linux version.
> If a ports committer would like to offer being on the CC of submitted PRs
> so that the weekly updates can go through relatively quickly, that would
> be very nice :).
Yeh, I'll do it.
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu at FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20080316/cb1257e6/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports