Hi all, Am Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:46:32AM +0100 schrieb Piotr Smyrak: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:03:56 +0100 > Ronald Klop <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Op 16-10-2025 om 13:56 schreef Robert Clausecker: > > > > > > I am the maintainer of the ladybird port. > > > Unfortunately this project has required skia to build for a while > > > now, which poses a big problem. Namely, it's the only port that > > > needs skia but doesn't bundle it. But we don't have skia packaged > > > right now. Packaging skia seems like a big deal, with potentially > > > lots of patching required (though most patches can be taken from > > > chromium ports that bundle skia). Would anybody be interested in > > > giving it a shot? This would then permit us to have up-to-date > > > ladybird again, giving our users more choice as far as web browsers > > > are concerned. > > > > https://skia.org/docs/user/build/ > > > > Apparently it uses Bazel and GN. > > For recent Bazel a PR is > > available: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=287546. The GN > > tool I'm not aware if it is in the ports tree or not. > > > This is already available in the ports tree: > graphics/skia
So the current situation is this: after soliciting a third party contributor to do a skia port, it turned out that not just is skia needed, but in fact a specific version tied to the specific ladybird version. In particular, the version in ports is unsuitable. And then other dependencies like it started to crop up. As a result I have decided to abandon porting Ladybird. It seems like it'll be one big bundle of everything with constant maintenance burden. Yours, Robert Clausecker -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments
