Le Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Leah Rowe a écrit :
> Hello OpenBSD ports team
> 
> I've recently ported LibreWolf web browser to OpenBSD. I have attached a
> tarball of my port, which is created for -current.

hi, i havent looked closely at the port (and sorry it won't make 7.9,
too late), but just one first comment on this:

> * Upstream (LibreWolf) tracks FireFox versions, but adds -REVISION, e.g.
> 149.0.2 FireFox upstream becomes LibreWolf 149.0.2-1, and then LibreWolf
> might later do -2 instead, for certain revisions on top.
> 
> * I intend to regard LibreWolf -REVISION changes as the same major version
> in an OpenBSD context, because the OpenBSD LibreWolf package strips
> -REVISION, so e.g. 149.0.2-2 becomes just 149.0.2 in OpenBSD. If I change
> from e.g. -1 to -2, then I would update REVISION= in the OpenBSD port
> Makefile, but then later if LibreWolf released LibreWolf 150, I would
> reset/remove REVISION, then reintroducing it for 150.0.X-1, -2 -3 and so on.
> This ensures that the LibreWolf version number on OpenBSD packages will
> always match the Mozilla FireFox version number, and only the REVISION (e.g.
> p1, p2, p3 etc) would potentially diverge.

i wouldnt drop the 'upstream -REVISION', rather convert it to yet
another dot in the version (eg ${MOZILLA_VERSION:S/-/.}) because:
- REVISION is bumped when you change something in the port and nothing
  changed upstream
- if you drop it and REVISION is bumped, then you're not in sync anymore
  with upstream, and that can be awkward because the package version
doesnt really tell which 'upstream REVISION' is in the package.

compare the fictional timelines:

- you version the initial port 149.0.2 (which is actually 149.0.2-1)
- you fix something in the port, it becomes 149.0.2p0
- upstream releases 149.0.2-2, you update the port, it becomes 149.0.2p1
  - awkward ?

vs:
- you version the port 149.0.2.1 (it clearly states the upstream REVISION)
- you fix something in the port, it becomes 149.9.2.1p0
- upstream releases 149.0.2-2, you update the port it becomes 149.0.2.2

i'm not sure my explanation makes it clear, but that's just my 2c on
this topic only :)

generally speaking i'm not a fan of firefox forks (they can be somewhat
PR-hostile vs upstream, which i find often unfair, but ofc i'm biaised),
but as long as they have a proper MAINTAINER and don't get in the way of
www/mozilla/mozilla.port.mk changes i (rarely) need to do for the other
mozillas, that's fine to have them in the portstree. diversity is good
for the end-user.

(oh and thanks for providing many details on what you changed and why,
that greatly helps reviewing a port submission like this one)

Landry