On 10 July 2012 11:03, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Yup, this issue hit anybody who has qt-webkit and chromium installed. > > I wouldn't be surprised if that is half of the entire userbase.
I would be. > We ran into another confusing icu-related issue with qt-core a few > weeks ago (bug 413541). I can understand that the qt maintainers want > to get away from enabling icu for this reason, but chromium is a VERY > popular package so it is really only disabled in the sense that it > annoys a bazillion people who have to un-disable it and then still run > into the problems. You keep saying that, but do you have any actual data to back up that claim? There is no doubt that Chromium is a mainstream and popular package, but I doubt if it is quite *that* popular as you make it seem. > Better portage logic might help here, but I think we need to consider > whether a non-optimal decision from a single package perspective is > going to lead to a better overall experience for our userbase. Zac > suggested adding icu to the profile, which would work, though really > just adding it as the default for these two packages would really > address the issue until portage can catch up. > > Those who REALLY don't want icu support in qt-webkit can always > disable it manually now that the flag is there. If there is a fear > that this default will lead to more bugs, those bugs will happen > anyway, since anybody running chromium has to enable that flag. But for all we know, that is a minority of our users. To make a better informed decision, it would be really helpful to have some numbers of users who have both qt-webkit and chromium, and those who have qt-webkit but not chromium. We all want to improve the user experience. I'm just not convinced that enabling icu by default, and letting the users deal with the fallout, is the best way of doing that. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
