From: "Clément Lassieur" <clement@lassieur.org>
To: "Ian Eure" <ian@retrospec.tv>, "Hilton Chain" <hako@ultrarare.space>
Cc: 74790@debbugs.gnu.org, "André Batista" <nandre@riseup.net>,
"Jonathan Brielmaier" <jonathan.brielmaier@web.de>,
"Mark H Weaver" <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: [bug#74790] [PATCH] gnu: librewolf: Support Guix icecat browser extensions.
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 19:15:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce1e8538-afa0-4266-b823-d55574238399@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bjxf8oup.fsf@retrospec.tv>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]
Hi Ian,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024, at 6:38 PM, Ian Eure wrote:
> The patches look good to me, thank you for taking this on! How to
> handle browser extensions is a subject that’s been on my mind
> intermittently, so it’s great to see effort in that direction.
>
> I think it might be non-obvious that IceCat packages affect
> non-IceCat browsers. I’d really like to have a solid facility for
> managing extensions across the different Firefox forks, either
> with generic "browser-extension-ublock-origin" packages; or
> something similar to the Common Lisp setup, where
> implementation-specific package variants can be derived from a
> canonical one.
I've looked into having variant-specific extensions already
(https://issues.guix.gnu.org/68298), and I came to the conclusion that it
added a lot of complexity for little benefits. Maybe I was wrong and you
thought of a better implementation? Still, I think most of the time users
would want their "system add-ons" to be available on all browsers. When this
is not the case, they can already use 'guix shell' to run a Firefox variant
with a different set of extensions, or use the built-in add-on system.
We can however add clarity where things are unclear.
Cheers,
Clément
> I lean somewhat towards the latter approach, since
> I think it provides a cleaner way of handling differences across
> browsers. Given the different release cadences, I think it makes
> sense to abstract over the differences in the build tooling rather
> than patching the browsers to get consistent behavior.
>
> To be clear here, these patches don’t have to wait for that; I’m
> +1 on pushing as-is. But I think we should have a more explicit
> system for handling browser extension packages.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2923 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-13 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-11 15:07 [bug#74790] [PATCH] gnu: librewolf: Support Guix icecat browser extensions Hilton Chain
2024-12-11 20:28 ` Clément Lassieur
2024-12-13 17:38 ` Ian Eure
2024-12-13 18:15 ` Clément Lassieur [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ce1e8538-afa0-4266-b823-d55574238399@app.fastmail.com \
--to=clement@lassieur.org \
--cc=74790@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=hako@ultrarare.space \
--cc=ian@retrospec.tv \
--cc=jonathan.brielmaier@web.de \
--cc=mhw@netris.org \
--cc=nandre@riseup.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).