From: Landry Breuil Subject: Re: new port: LibreWolf Web browser To: ports@openbsd.org Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 14:54:05 +0200 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