[webkit-dev] Hosting precompiled `jsc` binaries for Linux

[Maciej Stachowiak]

> On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Mathias Bynens <mths at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:52 PM, JF Bastien <jfb at chromium.org <mailto:jfb at chromium.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM Mathias Bynens <mths at google.com <mailto:mths at google.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:38 PM, JF Bastien <jfb at chromium.org <mailto:jfb at chromium.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM Mathias Bynens <mths at google.com <mailto:mths at google.com>> wrote:
> Ideally, projects such as jsvu wouldn’t have to make such decisions. They would trust the maintainer of the JS engine, in this case Apple, to provide the downloads. 
> 
> If Apple trusts Igalia enough, that’s Apple’s decision. Projects such as jsvu shouldn’t have to duplicate that decision IMHO. The way to do that is to host binaries on an official domain.
> 
> It sounds like our disconnect is on who maintains JSC outside of Apple ecosystems. The GTK port is not maintained by Apple, though we work closely with the maintainers and avoid breakage where we can. 
> 
> JSC is Apple’s JS engine. Who maintains which port of it is a detail that downstream projects should not concern themselves with, IMHO.
> 
> Isn’t that exactly the same as the PPC or S390 versions of V8?
> https://github.com/v8/v8/wiki/Handling-of-Ports <https://github.com/v8/v8/wiki/Handling-of-Ports>
> 
> Or the MIPS version of NaCl?
> 
> I agree this is the same. If I was building an installer that included these ports, I’d prefer to get the downloads through Google/V8 too, if possible.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com <mailto:mjs at apple.com>> wrote:
> We do not have any Linux binaries blessed, approved or endorsed by Apple, and we never will, regardless of what domain it's hosted on. However, you can get official Linux binaries from parties that own Linux ports.
> 
> If the hosting domain doesn’t matter, would you object to it being webkit.org <http://webkit.org/>? All I meant to say is that this would be my preference.

I would not object. But it's not up to me. It's up to the owners of WebKitGtk (or another port that produces a Linux binary), and the people who would have to do the engineering and operations work to set it up.

If it comes down to an arbitrary preference for webkit.org <http://webkit.org/> over webkitgtk.org <http://webkitgtk.org/>, then you may have to give a better reason to convince the people who would actually have to do the work.

Regards,
Maciej

> 
> Just to clarify, I’d be excited to get the downloads at all! I understand who maintains the Linux port, and I appreciate everyone’s hard work on this. 
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org>
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20171212/68307fc4/attachment.html>