XPI infrastructure needs some love

Rob Farmer rfarmer at predatorlabs.net
Wed Sep 8 05:00:50 UTC 2010

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 21:32, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 09/07/2010 09:09 PM, Rob Farmer wrote:
>> Around 6 months ago, a similar thing was proposed for a number of
>> eclipse plugins - they can all be installed and updated via the
>> builtin update manager and nothing is built for FreeBSD - they are
>> just Java stuff that can be binary downloaded and run anywhere.
> Are these eclipse plugins similar to mozilla plugins in that the user has to
> take an additional step after the FreeBSD package is added, or if the
> package is on the system then it's available to all the users immediately?
>  If the latter, then I can understand why having FreeBSD packages of them
> would be valuable. If they are similar to mozilla plugins then I'm curious
> what the value-add is.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "take an additional step after the
FreeBSD package is added." I've never used either the xpi ports or the
eclipse plugins.

Do users have to run some command to import the plugins into their
~/.mozilla profiles after root installs them or is it automatic?
Skimming a couple makefiles, neither the xpi nor eclipse plugin ports
indicate this type of thing in a pkg-message or similar that I can

I don't really have much of an opinion on this - I can see the pros
(easier administration) and cons (more ports to be maintained,
possiblity of lagging behind what's available upstream) to having the
ports. I just recall the discussion and mentioned it because I thought
it might be relevant if there was already some precedent for this type
of thing (it seems the eclispe ports were kept).

Rob Farmer

> Doug
> --
>        ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
>                        -- Propellerheads
>        Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
>        a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list