Yeah i'll just keep my port separate

No need to unify with firefox. it'd only save about 10-15 lines of 
config anyway, while yes, potentially complicating both ports.


Am 15.05.26 um 13:54 schrieb Landry Breuil:
> 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

-- 
Company director, Minifree Ltd
Registered in England, No. 9361826 | VAT No. GB202190462
Registered Office: 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QA, UK

• OpenPGP_0x5C654067D383B1FF.asc (3K)