On 2018/08/03 21:39, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:56:06AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2018/08/03 10:34, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > > > чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 12:40, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > On 2018/08/02 07:17, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > > > > > If no concerns I would like to commit the patch. > > > > > > > > I'm a bit confused about this because: > > > > > > > > 1. we have a patch described as "Enable W^X in QtWebkit's JIT" > > > > in x11/qt5/qtwebkit/patches/patch-Source_JavaScriptCore_jsc_pro > > > > > > Unfortunately, it QtWebKit still crashes due to W^X violations, even > > > with those patches. And there's really no point in polishing it > > > nowadays, it's community-maintained (read: it gets only very minor > > > updates to make it build work with newer Qt versions, as nobody in > > > good mind is willing/able to fully maintain it). > > > > > > Yes, you don't want to run QtWebkit-based browsers for real. > > > > So, OK for the USE_WXNEEDED diff, but I think it might be better to do > > the following to reduce the chance of running into more cases where it's > > missing: > > > > - have portcheck complain if webkit is listed in WANTLIB and USE_WXNEEDED > > is not set > > Hmm. I don't like that approach. > Most ports with webkit in WANTLIB work just fine without having USE_WXNEEDED > set.
Only because of the cmake/pkg-config hacks though, and it's partly for self-documentation besides actually changing the build, this way you can just do 'select fullpkgpath from ports where use_wxneeded=1' to find them. OTOH I'd probably feel differently if I maintained a bunch of ports using webkit, so...
