From: Leah Rowe Subject: Re: New port of LibreWolf web browser for OpenBSD, Act II To: Caspar Schutijser Cc: ports@openbsd.org Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 04:28:29 +0100 still compiling, but i noticed this in the meantime: https://codeberg.org/vimuser/librewolf-openbsd-port/commit/59917feb7aac09def38582b530f62f09d64ca965 this shouldn't actually affect anything functionally, due to the way diff format works, but this patches out a leftover from when i manually converted a git diff to create a patch for this port just a minor thing really Am 03.06.26 um 00:45 schrieb Leah Rowe: > > I now attach a new tarball, based on: > https://codeberg.org/vimuser/librewolf-openbsd-port/commits/branch/submit8 > > It has the following updates: > > * Update to ports-clang 22: > https://codeberg.org/vimuser/librewolf-openbsd-port/commit/ece9192ee68dce7292c29b86ed703041e8ef8abc > > * Use XShm 1.2 for better screen capture support with pledge: > https://codeberg.org/vimuser/librewolf-openbsd-port/commit/44f0603ca2a39e1a497d4381cc2137c6340c3dca > > * Update to LibreWolf 151.0.3-1: > https://codeberg.org/vimuser/librewolf-openbsd-port/commit/85cb40d462484ba900bf3f3932b83ba878c15d04 > > * Change SO_VERSION to 0.0 - yes, you said that by policy,  a new port > like this must start from zero. > > Now, to answer your questions: > > Am 30.05.26 um 14:32 schrieb Caspar Schutijser: >> - Question to other developers: I think it would make sense to have >> SO_VERSION start at 0.0 instead of 163.0. Do you agree? > I wasn't aware what it was, so at first I simply copied what Firefox > did. With the explanation given by @landry, I have now done as you ask. >> >> - When diffing LibreWolf's Makefile with Firefox' Makefile, I see some >> differences that are mostly whitespace or the addition of quotes ("). >> I can see why you'd do that, but in the interest of keeping the diff >> with Firefox as small as possible, if I were you I'd just follow what >> the Firefox port does. If you would want to fix those, my approach would >> be to first change those in the Firefox port and then you could copy >> them to LibreWolf again. But in the end, it's up to you :) > > I think what I've done is perfectly fine for this port, and even > desirable, which is why I did it. I wanted the Makefile to be easier > for people to understand, and I did what was feasible (under the > limitations of Make) to fix potential globbing issues that I found in > the original Firefox port. > > I don't see how this should be relevant regarding Firefox, as > Librewolf is its own port; the fact that I used the Firefox port as a > base is merely a coincidence, one of convenience but I could have just > as easily did the port from scratch (and an earlier version of the > port was largely written from scratch, with the Firefox port only as a > reference). Of course, I could also make these improvements to > Firefox. You'll note that I also remove a lot of path repetition by > putting path strings in variables, thereby reducing the column width > per line (every line in my Makefile is 79 characters or fewer in > length, not counting line breaks). > > Don't worry. The current Librewolf port, as I've implemented it, is > perfectly in sync with Firefox. The only functional changes are those > ones specific to LibreWolf. I track changes to OpenBSD's firefox and > I'm quite fastidious about it. I adapt each change, per commit. > > Were I to ever make a change on my port that is also suitable for > Firefox, ideally it should be submitted in the Firefox port as well. > My changes to string variables and double-quoting should definitely be > adapted for the Firefox port as well, since they do (in my opinion) > make it easier to understand the Makefile, and it reduces the chance > of splitting strings; in practice, the way ports is used by OpenBSD as > a project make it a non-issue. Some of the globbing issues cannot be > fixed in either port, due to inherent limitations of how Make handles > variables. > >> - And of course the port would need some catching up to the changes in >> the last few days, like landry@'s LLVM 22 fixes. > I have updated to LLVM 22, as in the above changelog. >> >> - patch-lw_policies_json: the last few lines look like the patch file >> originates from git. Perhaps you can do "make update-patches" to >> make sure it doesn't introduce a useless diff later. > > Actually, this is an adaptation of one set of changes that OpenBSD > makes to Mozilla Firefox; I adapted it for Librewolf, which also > provides its own policy file, so instead of merging OpenBSD's firefox > policy file as-in, I adapt OpenBSD's version as a patch for > LibreWolf's policy. I don't think this will be a problem, but I could > perhaps upstream this patchset (send it to LibreWolf). > > As is, I don't think I should do anything about this, for the port > merge. It is something that can be addressed at a later date, as part > of regular maintenance. > > I must note that as I write this, I am currently building the port > with these changes as shown above. I'm confident that it will build, > and work perfectly. I will nonetheless report back with a follow-up > email, after the build is complete and after I've tested everything. > As it currently stands, these updates mean that my port is currently > in perfect sync with www/mozilla-firefox. > -- Company director, Minifree Ltd Registered in England, No. 9361826 | VAT No. GB202190462 Registered Office: 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QA, UK