David Craven <da...@craven.ch> writes: >> I have no problems dropping Texmaker. I’m not even using it. > > That would be a shame, but I'm not using it either... I don't think > there's a problem with bundling in this case, I just don't understand > why you where against bundling in cargo's case, but not this one, > that's all. I'm all for striving for ideals and perfectionism, as long > as we keep in mind that nothing is perfect and stay pragmatic.
The situation with Texmaker is: we used to have a build of Qt where qtwebengine was included. (This was before we had a set of modular Qt packages, IIRC.) Then we ripped qtwebengine out of the monolithic “qt” package for good reasons. As a result a couple of packages broke. So this is about fixing a regression. We still got rid of bundling for *most* packages using Qt. The approach you suggested for cargo (a new package) is to make bundling the default and in the build system, if I understood correctly. We’ve gone to great lengths to avoid bundling in providing other packages. See the Java bootstrap, for example, or Ruby. I don’t think it’s “perfectionist” to apply the same standards to other languages and build systems. ~~ Ricardo
