On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 10:10:11 PM Valorie Zimmerman wrote: >> Reading backlog on channels today, I saw this in #plasma: >> >> [02:12] <mgraesslin> hmm looks like kmail with qtwebengine is faster >> in opening mails, that would be positive >> [02:12] <notmart> yay >> [02:12] <notmart> but distribution will ever package it now? >> [02:13] --> soee ([email protected]) has joined this >> channel. [02:13] <bshah> qtwebengine? >> [02:15] <notmart> yeah, qtwebengine and in turn anything using it >> [02:15] <mgraesslin> well kdepim now depends on it >> [02:15] <notmart> like, we haz a "beautiful" mobile web browser >> written one year and an half ago... :p >> [02:16] <mgraesslin> so distros need to either package it or drop kdepim >> [02:18] <notmart> yep >> [02:18] <bshah> arch packages it >> [02:19] <bshah> but well debian and friends.. meh >> [02:19] <mgraesslin> the deb-based distros don't >> >> I'm assuming that Debian doesn't package it because of policy - >> chromium inside of qtwebengine evidently embeds its own dependencies, >> which is ... ick. >> >> I looked it up on the Qt website: >> http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-index.html >> >> If KDEPim will now depend on it, we have no choice, I think? Shall I >> file a packaging bug against it? > > It's not just policy (Debian policy doesn't forbid embedded libraries, it just > discourages them). The estimate I recall reading from people on the Debian > Qt-KDE team is that packaging QtWebEngine is about the same amout of work as > Chromium or Firefox on their own. > > Take a look at the number of people that work on those (including people doing > it as a full time job) and ask yourself how feasible it is. > > Scott K
Good point, but dropping KDEPim? That sounds terrible, too. Valorie -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
