|
From: | Ian Eure |
Subject: | [bug#67512] [PATCH 0/5] Add LibreWolf |
Date: | Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:28:35 -0800 |
User-agent: | mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 |
Hi, thank you very much for your comments. Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
Hi! Ian Eure <ian@retrospec.tv> skribis:I mentioned in #guix that I was working on a package for LibreWolf, and it was requested that I send in patches, so I am. These changes are based on the firefox-esr package in nonguix; I've retained thecopyright / authorship notices from there. LibreWolf (https://librewolf.net/) is a fork of Firefox whichremoves the telemetry and advertising, and bundles uBlock Origin. It doesn't have the redistribution issues that Firefox does, itsname/logo are under MPL 2.0 and aren't trademarked.I'm new to Guix, and not remotely a browser development expert, so Idon't expect these are ready to be accepted yet, but I believethey're in good enough shape to have a discussion about. They'reworking acceptably well for me, though I'm not currently daily driving Guix, so there may be issues I haven't encountered yet.This is much appreciated! People often complain that IceCat is based on too old a version of Firefox, so if we can have LibreWolf (or evenFirefox without its problematic bits), that’s great.
IMO, LibreWolf pretty much is Firefox without the problematic bits. It’s been my default browser for several years, and I’m very satisfied
with it.
This work isn’t based on the icecat package, but on the firefox-esr package from nonguix. The duplication I refer to is two small helper functions, `runpath-of' and `runpaths-of-input', totaling nine lines of code; they’re flagged with a comment in the patch. As mentioned in the cover letter, I’m happy to extract these, I just don’t know where they ought to be placed. They’re defined inside a lambda in a gexp, which sounds like it may be challenging to put somewhere accessible toThe librewolf package has some functions duplicated from (gnupackages gnuzilla), which probably ought to get factored out and putsomewhere, but I'm not sure if they should be in (gnu packagesmozilla) or a different module. Guidance would be appreciated here.To me that’s the main issue here: these packages are complex, and I wouldn’t want us to end up with two (or more!) copies of these beasts.As the person who made the changes, it would be great if you could pinpoint things that had to be changed compared to ‘icecat’. Whatphases or flags differ? What phases can be factorized?
both packages.Skimming the icecat package, not many of the build steps are shared with librewolf, and factoring the commonalities out would IMO result in overly complex, brittle, hard to maintain code that’s worse than the slight duplication between the two packages. If there’s a strong
feeling that they must be accounted for, I’ll give it a try, but I don’t believe that it’s the best option. Thanks, — Ian
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |