My big worry about that, is that somewhere somebody is thinking about using that argument to add Flash and/or Moonlight to Webkit - and down that path madness lies ;-)
There really aren’t any “size-hogs” in WK other than SVG itself - but it’s been a while since I looked I admit. I tend to think of “fork it” as a last desperate measure rather than first plan - but whatever - I was just interested in others opinions since I don’t have a horse in this race anyhow. Steve "Harry" Coul sc...@cisco.com On Feb 4, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Dirk Schulze <k...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 5:20 AM, Steven Coul (scoul) <sc...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> I agree, the time taken to build is not really a good reason for the change >> or lack of - as you point out there, are many other ways to optimize the >> build process/server which will have wider benefits. >> >> But does anybody consider size to be an issue? SVG adds a fair chunk to the >> size of a binary - especially in debug builds - which is not very friendly >> to embedded systems. >> >> ( Real embedded, not just a small form factor $500 PC running Windows etc ) >> >> I know in general WK seems to be aimed at desktop, big mobile etc - and we >> tend to ignore anything not directly related to the the main builds, but >> even on a desktop I wouldn’t mind seeing a crusade to make things smaller. >> One day I’ll see my whole OS in L1 Cache…….. > > In this case you may want to branch WebKit and remove more than just SVG. > > WebKit is a browser engine and should display web content. There is no doubt > anymore that SVG is an integral part of the web. That is the the only > decision that matters here IMO. > > Greetings, > Dirk > >> >> Steve "Harry" Coul >> sc...@cisco.com >> >> >> >> On Feb 4, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Osztrogonác Csaba <o...@inf.u-szeged.hu> wrote: >> >>> Xabier Rodríguez Calvar írta: >>>> Sorry for the late answer, but I was in Brussels at FOSDEM. >>>> O Ven, 31-01-2014 ás 14:01 +0100, Alberto Garcia escribiu: >>>>> Not in the GTK+ port at least, I've been able to do builds without >>>>> SVG perfectly fine, so there's probably something else wrong in your >>>>> environment or the port you're using. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I'm also fine with removing it. >>>> It saves some times in our builds and I always use it unless I have to >>>> do something with SVG. >>>> I would keep it unless it doesn't pay off the effort of maintaining it. >>>> Br. >>> >>> I've checked the full clean build time of GTK port on a quad core i5-2320 >>> (3GHz) machine with icecc buildfarm and -j30 makeflag: >>> - with SVG disabled:"WebKit is now built (11m:58s)." >>> - with SVG enabled: "WebKit is now built (13m:38s)." >>> >>> The difference isn't so big. But it was clean build, I don't think if >>> developers always do clean builds. If you don't touch SVG related files, >>> the build time shouldn't depend on enabled/disabled SVG. >>> >>> In my opinion the ENABLE(SVG) flag is not to speed up clean builds, but >>> disable SVG if you don't want to ship it. There are so many way to speed >>> up builds: >>> - use more cores, use icecc buildfarm, use ccache >>> - get rid of include paths and use module relative includes >>> (But it can be a separated thread if anybody is interested in it.) >>> >>> Ossy >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
