|
From: | Ian Eure |
Subject: | [bug#67512] [PATCH v4 3/4] gnu: Add wasm packages. |
Date: | Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:20:41 -0800 |
User-agent: | mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 |
Hello,Just pinging on this. v5 of the patch reduces scope, as we discussed; it’s now just a nss update + addition of LibreWolf.
Thanks, — Ian Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
On Wed, Feb 21 2024, Ian Eure wrote:Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:On Wed, Feb 21 2024, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:Am Dienstag, dem 20.02.2024 um 18:18 -0800 schrieb Ian Eure:I think this ordering is w.r.t. *patch sets*, not patches. I wouldn'tClément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes: > > Are you saying you want a process like: > > > > 1a. Get wasm toolchain stuff merged. > > 1b. Get Librewolf merged without WASM sandboxing.> > 2. Update icecat, torbrowser, mullvad, and librewolf to > > > > use > >WASM sandboxing. > > Excatly. 1b can be done after 1a, or before 1a.> Is there a technical reason why landing WASM sandboxing > support for all browsers in the same patch is desirable? I can intuit none, and as I’m disinclined to either roll back portions of my existing patchset, or workon other browsers, the proposal is disagreeable.suggest dropping four packages into one patch.Indeed I've never said it should be done in one patch. I said one-shot as in ‘symmetrical’: the work required to add Wasm to our browsers should be more or less the same for all browsers, and code duplicationshould be avoided.Forgive me for my imprecision, and thank you for theexplanation. Unfortunately, the distinction makes little difference to me, as it still would require me to do work I’m unwilling to do. My unwillingness has less to do with the amount of work than its scope: My goal is to get LibreWolf into Guix, and I simply have no desire or motivation to work onother browsers.Firefox based browsers are closely related. Sounds impossible to me to really do good work on one of them without touching the other ones.I think the best course of action is to reduce scope by removing the WASM component of this patch series entirely. I’d send a new patch series without the WASM toolchain packages, and with WASM sandboxing disabled in the LibreWolf package. The official LibreWolf binaries don’t appear to have this enabled, so no hardening would be sacrified vs. LibreWolf installed any other way. And since I’m not the original author of the WASM packages, and not well-positioned to address problems with them, omitting them seems likely to circumvent difficulties in the review process and support of those.What do you think?Sounds good. And we can add WASM later.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |