Re: Assistance required: porting skia

Hi all,

Am Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:46:32AM +0100 schrieb Piotr Smyrak:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:03:56 +0100
> Ronald Klop <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Op 16-10-2025 om 13:56 schreef Robert Clausecker:
> > > 
> > > I am the maintainer of the ladybird port.
> > > Unfortunately this project has required skia to build for a while
> > > now, which poses a big problem.  Namely, it's the only port that
> > > needs skia but doesn't bundle it.  But we don't have skia packaged
> > > right now. Packaging skia seems like a big deal, with potentially
> > > lots of patching required (though most patches can be taken from
> > > chromium ports that bundle skia).  Would anybody be interested in
> > > giving it a shot?  This would then permit us to have up-to-date
> > > ladybird again, giving our users more choice as far as web browsers
> > > are concerned.
> > 
> > https://skia.org/docs/user/build/
> > 
> > Apparently it uses Bazel and GN.
> > For recent Bazel a PR is
> > available: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=287546. The GN tool I'm not aware if it is in the ports tree or not.
> 
> 
> This is already available in the ports tree:
> graphics/skia

So the current situation is this: after soliciting a third party
contributor to do a skia port, it turned out that not just is skia
needed, but in fact a specific version tied to the specific ladybird
version.  In particular, the version in ports is unsuitable.  And
then other dependencies like it started to crop up.

As a result I have decided to abandon porting Ladybird.  It seems
like it'll be one big bundle of everything with constant maintenance
burden.

Yours,
Robert Clausecker

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world
/\  - against html email  - against proprietary attachments