[webkit-dev] Announcing new port: Nix
rniwa at webkit.org
Thu Sep 12 18:58:04 PDT 2013
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Fletcher
<thomas at cranksoftware.com>wrote:
> Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On 9/12/13 5:21 PM, Thomas Fletcher wrote:
> Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> Sure. We at University of Szeged who work on WebKitNix from this year
> WebCore, Tools, …
> Thank you for this list. I started reading through it, but I noticed a high percentage of patches that were port-specific build fixes or port-specific features like support for legacy ARM chips. For example, “...on ARM traditional” (<https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/142616> <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/142616>). Those patches are cost to core WebKit development, not benefit.
> I don't want to mis-interpret your statement here. Can you clarify what
> you mean by "Those
> patches are cost to core WebKit development, not benefit."
> I cannot talk for Geoff but here is my take.
> The WebKit code base has:
> -Core features used by everyone.
> -Core features used by many (e.g. curl, Texture Mapper, etc).
> -Port code that is only useful for some people.
> In the WebKit project, we value the first two. The port work is necessary
> for everything to fit together, but that is not a contribution to the
> project per say.
> It is always good to refer to the project goals as it summarizes this
> quite nicely: https://www.webkit.org/projects/goals.html
> This being said, I think this thread is not longer very productive.
> If you are interested in things like removing ancient CPU architecture,
> better start a new thread.
> I disagree .. I think that this has been a very civil discussion on a very
> relevant topic to the long term sustainability
> of WebKit as an OpenSource project via an easier barrier to adoption into
> custom environments. I'm familiar with
> the project goals, which is another reason why you've never seen much back
> contributions from @cranksoftware.com
> since most of our work does indeed end up being in the area of "Port code
> that is only useful for some people".
> What this discussion is starting to center on is why the NIX port would
> not be valued as a mainstream port that,
> like the other ports, validates that the implementation of Core features
> (the first two items) makes sense in a broader
> Is the main concern about having maintainers for the port so it can be
> kept up to date or is it more a concern that
> the technology direction that the NIX port represents, as an alternative
> porting layer.
I think both of them are valid concerns.
However, you've already clarified that you're going to improve WebRTC and
are, in fact, in the process of doing so. Furthermore, you've clarified
that there is a demand for your port and human resources to maintain it.
I'm actually curious if anyone's opposed to supporting Nix port and why if
- R. Niwa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev