
Sorry if it feels rude, since you eluded he question hav little choice but to ask again. Do you have feedbacks on Arch binary to Porteus (Slackware) module converter by Neko? or on loading Tinycore webkitFLTK and fifth modules into Porteus ?
I know. PPAs have been requested previously. It's however too much work when I don't use any of those distros. If anyone starts a PPA or other such packaging system, I'll gladly link to it.I might try reaching out to the maintainer to suggest that the project would increase in popularity
if the 4 major package binaries (tgz... txz... rpm... deb...) were supported.
Cmake is not supported. Please use the build commands listed in the README.It uses Cmake... however it's source configuration contains commands that Cmake rejects.
Did you build webkitfltk with assertions (the default)? As mentioned in the README, you should do a release build for normal use, the assertions can fire on valid websites, seemingly causing a crash.Crashed when I loaded a 40 urls session of mine (mostly tech sites)
The JIT is disabled, as it was too unstable. As a result Javascript is always interpreted, which is slower than the major browsers, but also uses less RAM. Doesn't really matter on most sites, though JS-heavy pages such as html5 games will not be usable.Ah and it's a benchmark (the synthetic ones) killer: I mean it gets the lowest score on Octane/Jetstream/... while being fast, just showing off that what these benchmarks score is the browsers' ability to run themselves.
I don't have the skill set to compile your creation.PPAs have been requested previously. It's however too much work when I don't use any of those distros.
Which one it is, fifth-0.4_glibc-2.7_x86_64.txz of 12.8 MB? (Arch compiled fifth-0.4-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz is 11 MB)cemi wrote:Sup folks, Fifth author reporting in.
I build a portable x86_64 linux binary for each release, you can download it from the official link, and it should work fine on Porteus.
Yeap: in webkitfltk-0.4/README:Cmake is not supported. Please use the build commands listed in the README.It uses Cmake... however it's source configuration contains commands that Cmake rejects.
Code: Select all
Building
--------
You can try to build using the upstream Webkit cmake scripts, or the hacked-up
plain makefiles included herein.
The cmake system did not work for us, which is the reason for the makefiles.
Up to now I used pure Arch defaults (note: same for Porteus Nemesis) and Steffen Weber's PKGBUILD below, but I'll try without assertions to building 'release'. Note that all it required never get over ~2gb space.Did you build webkitfltk with assertions (the default)? As mentioned in the README, you should do a release build for normal use, the assertions can fire on valid websites, seemingly causing a crash.Crashed when I loaded a 40 urls session of mine (mostly tech sites)
If you built without asserts, and have a site where it still reliably crashes, please report it. The prebuilt binary was built without asserts, so it can be used to test.
Code: Select all
#-- Debugging flags
DEBUG_CFLAGS="-g -fvar-tracking-assignments"
DEBUG_CXXFLAGS="-g -fvar-tracking-assignments"
OPTIONS=(strip docs !libtool !staticlibs emptydirs zipman purge !optipng !upx !debug)
Code: Select all
pkgname=webkitfltk
pkgver=0.4
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Port of Webkit to FLTK 1.3"
<SNIP SNIP>
build() {
cd "$pkgname-$pkgver"
make -C Source/WTF/wtf
make -C Source/JavaScriptCore gen
make -C Source/JavaScriptCore
make -C Source/WebCore
make -C Source/WebKit/fltk
}
package() {
cd "$pkgname-$pkgver"
make -C Source/WebKit/fltk DESTDIR=$pkgdir install
}
Gotcha. I'm looking for a browser that's much *efficient* for browsing; not for synthetic bainchemarques (a joke in French on swiming suites and marks --prounounce like 'benchmark'The JIT is disabled, as it was too unstable. As a result Javascript is always interpreted, which is slower than the major browsers, but also uses less RAM. Doesn't really matter on most sites, though JS-heavy pages such as html5 games will not be usable.Ah and it's a benchmark (the synthetic ones) killer: I mean it gets the lowest score on Octane/Jetstream/... while being fast, just showing off that what these benchmarks score is the browsers' ability to run themselves.
Yes, that one.datruche wrote:Thank you for the precisions cemi
Which one it is, fifth-0.4_glibc-2.7_x86_64.txz of 12.8 MB? (Arch compiled fifth-0.4-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz is 11 MB)