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/mozillaim 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 FireFoxthat 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-browserbut 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
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
