Re: Chromium with WebAssembly flavor?
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 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/ >
Re: Chromium with WebAssembly flavor?
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/
Chromium with WebAssembly flavor?
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? 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
