Le Fri, May 15, 2026 at 10:59:38AM +0100, Leah Rowe a écrit :
> 
> All good points, but I do think there is merit in having a separate port for
> LibreWolf.
> 
> The existing FireFox port is quite conservative about how it patches
> Firefox, for OpenBSD-specific requirements. Look more carefully at
> LibreWolf. They have hundreds of patches for Firefox, that they maintain per
> release.
> 
> In my experience, they're pretty good about syncing with Mozilla, often
> providing new LibreWolf releases on the same day as each FireFox release.

Fwiw, that's Firefox, not Firefox :) your capitalisation makes my poor
eyes bleed...

> * Further consolidate the port, such that FireFox and LibreWolf both use a
> common module, that I will add: www/mozilla-browser - then both ports would
> more or less just have the same Makefile, with a few tweaks, but both
> Makefiles would be smaller. Like how you have www/mozilla with lots of
> common config. www/mozilla-browser will just be a common module specifically
> for browsers, still piggybacking off of common www/mozilla

im not sure that'll help maintainability, having multiple included
modules doesnt help tracking where a config knob comes from, and often
you mess up with VAR = overriding a VAR += somewhere... maybe revamping
the existing mozilla module and moving more things there would be
better.

i'll have to admit that i didnt go back to it for a while, and many
things present in tor-browser/thunderbird/firefox-esr might be
factorized there. including things for librewolf/mozilla-firefox if
needed. iirc that's what happened when tor-browser was imported, since
it was based off firefox-esr common things were added to
mozilla.port.mk.

> * Remove use of the mozconfig-based bootstrap in LibreWolf, and patch using
> CONFIGURE_ARGS and co, as in FireFox. This will mean that the Makefile is
> relatively in sync with FireFox

that would be welcome, if that's not too much plumbing.

> * After these two are done, it's quite possible that I could perhaps make
> LibreWolf a *flavour* instead, of the firefox port?

not a fan of this, since it'll end up on my plate.

> There is already precedent for forks in OpenBSD, e.g. see www/tor-browser

but iirc that one has way more invasive changes (but i havent looked
either)

> I haven't done these yet, plus there's been one or two new LibreWolf
> releases. I'm not in any rush until after OpenBSD 7.9 is out, since ports
> tree is  locked until then anyway. A few patches and I can have the above
> done in a day (including time taken for compiling, which is a lot, on my
> machine).

well, if you follow ports-cvs@ (which is advised if you plan to work
on/maintain ports, generally speaking) you'll see that the portstree is
unlocked since more than a week and many commits happened... and it's
also generally advised to followup/merge changes to the other mozilla
ports - eg for example
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports-cvs&m=177879244107144&w=2 or
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports-cvs&m=177317002102610&w=2 - i dont
always send diffs to ports@ for those, but for large changes i try to
(like https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=177851520412063&w=2).

when there are commits to the firefox port that arent mine, they're
generally discussed on ports@ before.

i personally dont care much, i dont mind having librewolf (or LibreWolf)
in the portstree if someone reviews/okays it :) i had a quick look at
one of the past submissions and it looked sane portswise.

Landry