GNU bug report logs - #67512
[PATCH 0/5] Add LibreWolf

Previous Next

Full log

Message #122 received at 67512 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 67512 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] gnu: Add wasm packages.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:22:06 -0800

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Am Dienstag, dem 13.02.2024 um 12:34 -0800 schrieb Ian Eure:
>> * gnu/packages/wasm.scm (wasi-libc): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/wasm.scm (wasm32-wasi-clang-runtime): New 
>> variable.
>> * gnu/packages/wasm.scm (wasm32-wasi-clang): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/wasm.scm (wasm32-wasi-libcxx): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/wasm.scm (wasm32-wasi-clang-toolchain): New 
>> variable.
>> ---
> Not sure what the result from v1-v3 is, but generally we do one 
> package
> per patch.
>

I have no problem splitting it up.


>  Also, if there is a reason to create a new file what do we do 
>  with the already packaged webassembly stuff in web.scm?
>

It was like that in nonguix, where I got it from.  It’s not a 
*good* reason, but that’s the reason.

I have absolutely zero preference, so please let me know where 
things should go and I’ll do it.  If it helps to have some 
options, I think these are reasonable ones, ordered by 
my-hot-take-descending:

A. Move the two wasm packages from (gnu packages web) to (gnu 
packages wasm).  Will require updates to anything which uses wabt, 
wasm3, or wasm-micro-runtime as inputs.

B. Leave as-is.

C. Fold the new (gnu packages wasm) into (gnu packages web).  I’m 
not certain this is a sensible place.  This has things more 
traditionally webby, like HTTP servers Perl cooke modules, HTML 
formatters, etc.  The wasm packages I’m bringing over are a wasm 
complier and libc usable by the wasm code built with that 
compiler.

D. Fold the new (gnu packages wasm) into (gnu packages librewolf). 
This is the only place they’re used, but it sounds like there’s 
desire to port some of the other firefoxen to this stuff, so 
probably not a good long-term option.


In the interest of avoiding more back-and-forth, are there other 
structural things I should be addressing at the same time as 
these?  This patch series has been open for three months and I’d 
like to get things wrapped up.

 — Ian

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.