Ah, well now I feel dumb... my sincere apologies for the spam then. Thanks for the help, I had no idea! :)
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 7:40 AM Thomas Frohwein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:44:26PM -0600, Charlie Burnett wrote: > > Hi, > > I wasn't sure if this was worthy of ports or not, so I wanted to throw > this > > out here first. I don't like Zoom, and I understand WebAssembly has some > > inherent issues in it, but I imagine a good number of people don't have a > > choice and have to use it as well in light of the current state of > things. > > On top of this, Citrix apps need it enabled as well. Wouldn't it be > > reasonable to make a flavor with ENABLE_WASM set for chromium then? > > I think you misunderstand how this works. ENABLE_WASM is for the runtime > environment; you don't need to rebuild the whole port. In fact, if set > ENABLE_WASM for a build of the port, it likely still won't enable > WebAssembly. > > Take an example webpage that checks for WebAssembly (for example [1]): > > $ chrome > > => "WebAssembly is not supported in your browser" > > $ ENABLE_WASM=1 chrome > > => "WebAssembly is supported in your browser" > > > Compiling chrome manually with the flag is a beast, and my laptop will > > usually throw a kernel panic before it'll finish compiling, plus as a > > package it's updated quite regularly which means it needs to be > recompiled > > quite regularly. > > Best regards, > > Charlie > > [1] https://d2jta7o2zej4pf.cloudfront.net/ >
