On Monday 02 December 2013 21:33:50 Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2013-12-02, Martin Steigerwald <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the oppinion of the Debian Qt/KDE team on this? > > I don't think the Debian Qt/KDE team has a opinion. Debian Qt/KDE team > maintains QtWebkit, and the kpart-webkit besides khtml. I also maintain > Arora. > > I have no plans to work on rekonq but I also don't have any plans to > work on it. > > Felix was looking at taking over Rekonq but his conclusion was as the > bug says.
I build my own version of rekonq and 2.4.0 is the most stable version I every had. I just copied to debian dir for building, i.e. I did not really put work into it. The author of rekonq recommends the latest qtwebkit release. "People reported, in this 40 days since rekonq 2.3.0 release, a lot of crash bugs that can be fixed just upgrading from QtWebKit 2.3.0 to QtWebKit 2.3.1." http://adjamblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/rekonq-2-3-1/ It is sad, that we have in sid only an outdated release rd@blackbox:~/SW.nobackup$ apt-cache policy libqtwebkit4 libqtwebkit4: Installiert: 2.2.1-7 Installationskandidat: 2.2.1-7 Versionstabelle: *** 2.2.1-7 0 600 http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/debian/ jessie/main i386 Packages 300 http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/debian/ sid/main i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2.2.1-5 0 500 http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages rd@blackbox:~/SW.nobackup$ *and* there is with Jose a volunteer who would want to work on qtwebkit. I keep hoping that you bring enough (non-technical skills) to get your dispute resolved...with a better result for Debian. Kind regards Rainer -- Rainer Dorsch http://bokomoko.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4563618.sWVI1cEK9F@blackbox
