On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:04:45AM -0600, attila wrote: > > Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> writes: > > > On 2015/03/14 07:25, Jiri B wrote: > >> Couldn't this be a flavor of (your cloned) firefox-esr in the beginning? > > > > That will likely get in the way of people updating firefox-esr.. > > Perhaps I could truly automate the generation of patches in a way that > would simplify this. Of course there can always be some issue that > involves manual intervention, like a conflict in a firefox-esr patch > with a Tor browser patch. As long as they were detected and flagged > by the automation it might not be too onerous. I'm willing to go this > way if landry@ agrees, since he's the maintainer. It feels to me like > a flavor of firefox-esr is worth pursuing now that I'm thinking about > it that way.
Having it as a flavor of firefox-esr will put the burden of ensuring that those damn patches still apply at each update on me.. using my mozilla developer hat here, and while i understand some ppl needs or views regarding tor, privacy and the fuzz around it, i dont endorse tbb's *huge* patchset at all (they dont really try to work with upstream..), and i dont want to confuse users of the port here. tbb is *not* firefox-esr, and to do things 'right' you would have to also apply all the branding stuff, since you're not allowed to use the logos/names/etc... So while technically the idea sounds nice, it *is* an hostile fork (TBB's devs think they know better than mozilla how to do a browser) which has to live in a separate port. Whether you copy www/firefox-esr/Makefile is up to you of course :) Landry
pgpuhyYBrMpu8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
