On 03/25/2018 02:54 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request complete > removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways of this > because simply removing things means also we remove productivity for > many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that is still not 100% > stable and some things work on chromium that don't work on Firefox and > vice versa).
ah welcome to the club - that is exactly the same predicament that trisquel and parabola have been in for some time - i know that parabola has had to drop a large number of programs because of this if pureos users complain about it, do feel free to point them to this thread on the fsd mailing list[1] - it lists most everything that is known about the issue and how other distros have dealt with it - also some small steps toward scrutinizing it in case you did not know, this chromium controversy is nearly 10 years old now and many people want it to be resolved one way or the other - someone from the FSF even told me that RMS stated an interest recently in resolving this; but it is a big task to be clear, it is assumed that the issue pertains to all chromium-derived browsers and libraries such as iridium, gupzilla, qt5-webengine, and all electron "apps" such as riot, atom, and vscode - one fedora developer has said that anything built on electron is probably a hopeless cause; but a qt5-webengine on the list has stated that they are interested and will fix any problems found even if the upstream does not - that is encouraging because clients of qt5-webengine account for the majority of blacklisted programs [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00003.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
