Hi,

On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 12:57 PM Caspar Schutijser
<caspar@schutijser.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In a couple of weeks, Tor Browser version 15.0 will be released.
> I'm already testing the alpha releases. While running the first alpha
> release, I noticed that it didn't "look" like Tor Browser but like
> Mozilla Firefox (in terms of the browser name, logo and some other
> things).

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but, since you state
testing new release of the tor-browser, I'm curious if
the issue of file-chooser window being too large has
been fixed?  Or is it that I'm doing something wrong?

As a reference, this is my post to misc@ mid-March:

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=174226879107461&w=2

That post got zero replies.  I don't know if that is
an indication that no one else experiences the same issue
or that not many people use the browser.

Best,
--patrick

>
> I did some digging and I found
> https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/tor-browser/-/work_items/43772#note_3240223
> The summary is that for Tor Browser, --enable-official-branding
> should not be passed to configure (anymore). However,
> mozilla.port.mk passes that to every port that uses mozilla.port.mk.
>
> There's multiple ways to make sure we don't pass this flag to
> the Tor Browser port; below some ideas:
>
> 1) surround "CONFIGURE_ARGS += --enable-official-branding"
> in mozilla.port.mk with a check to see if we're building Tor Browser.
>
> 2) move "CONFIGURE_ARGS += --enable-official-branding" out of
> mozilla.port.mk and have every "official" Mozilla port (i.e., every
> mozilla.port.mk port that is not Tor Browser) specify
> "CONFIGURE_ARGS += --enable-official-branding" itself.
>
> 3) surround "CONFIGURE_ARGS += --enable-official-branding" in
> mozilla.port.mk with something like
> ".if defined(MOZILLA_ENABLE_OFFICIAL_BRANDING)" and set it in
> every mozilla.port.mk port that is not Tor Browser.
>
> 4) the same as idea 4, but something like
> MOZILLA_DONT_ENABLE_OFFICIAL_BRANDING which is then only set in
> the Tor Browser port.
>
>
> Maybe there's other (better) approaches that I didn't think of.
>
> Below is a diff that implements idea 1. What do you think? Do you
> like another approach (e.g. idea 4) better?
>
> Thanks,
> Caspar
>
>
> Index: mozilla.port.mk
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/www/mozilla/mozilla.port.mk,v
> diff -u -p -r1.177 mozilla.port.mk
> --- mozilla.port.mk     15 Aug 2025 08:32:14 -0000      1.177
> +++ mozilla.port.mk     21 Sep 2025 19:40:30 -0000
> @@ -153,9 +153,12 @@ USE_NOBTCFI ?=     Yes
>
>  AUTOCONF_VERSION =     2.13
>  CONFIGURE_ARGS +=      --with-system-zlib      \
> -               --enable-official-branding      \
>                 --enable-optimize="${CFLAGS}"   \
>                 --disable-updater
> +.if !${PKGPATH:Mwww/tor-browser/*}
> +# https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/tor-browser/-/work_items/43772#note_3240223
> +CONFIGURE_ARGS +=      --enable-official-branding
> +.endif
>
>  # firefox >= 46 defaults to gtk+3
>  CONFIGURE_ARGS +=      --enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk3
>