On Thursday 25 June 2015 15:56:22 Florian Bruhin wrote: > * Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezme...@gmail.com> [2015-06-25 09:49:29 -0300]: > > On Thursday 25 June 2015 14:13:59 Florian Bruhin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > first of all, I hope it's okay I mail you directly because of this - I > > > didn't feel like this is appropriate for a bug report. > > > > It's appropiate for our team's -talk list, which I'm CCing right now :) > > Whah, I'm even subscribed there - sorry I didn't think of that!
No problem :) Let's just continue on-list then :) > > > > Seeing that Qt removes QtWebKit from their source- > > > > Actually they are not going to update it anymore, maybe except for > > security > > bugfixes. The source will remain there and should be able to keep building > > with Qt5.6+ > > I'm not entirely sure it will, unfortunately. > > From : > > * We’d still remove the deprecated modules from our Qt 5.6 release > (maybe with the exception of Qt Script). > > I also remember reading somewhere explicitely that it won't be > included in the qt-everywhere-opensource-... archive - sadly I can't > find the mail anymore. We are building from the submodules tarballs, so we already have the source code available. Building from qt-everywhere would be highly painfull: if something fails everything fails. > I asked in IRC (#qt-labs on Freenode) to clarify this, and even there > it seems people aren't sure what will happen exactly ;) > > <The-Compiler> Did I understand it correctly that the QtWebKit source > won't be part of the qt-everywhere-opensource tarball with Qt 5.6 anymore? > Or will it just be removed from binary builds? <aholza> hehe no it still > resists in the source folder > <The-Compiler> I'm pretty sure I read in some mail it doesn't, but I > might have misread then <The-Compiler>  only talks about "removing" it > <The-Compiler> carewolf? ^ > <carewolf> The-Compiler: don't know. I think it was mostly the binary > builds, but it could end up as separate tarball. Actually I have just read it there :) >  http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2015-June/022004.html > > > > and binary > > > distributions starting with Qt 5.6 and there's nobody stepping up > > > to package QtWebEngine for Debian so far, what are Debian's plans for > > > QtWebEngine after 5.6 has been released upstream? > > > > Not packaging it at all. See [lwn]. Properly packaging it in Debian means > > almost a fork, or in other words, a nightmare. Just consider that it > > bundles ffmped and most possibly a patched ffmpeg... > > > > [lwn] https://lwn.net/Articles/643423/ > > I still have some hope - I think Qt will still apply at least security > fixes for QtWebKit until Qt 6, which still should be a while away. > > Maybe some miracle happens in that time ;) Well, Fedora guys are in the same boat as us, so maybe we can coordinate with them. > > > If Debian were to drop QtWebKit when it's dropped upstream, that'll > > > mean there is no Qt web rendering engine in the Debian repos - also, > > > of course there are a lot of packages which need QtWebKit. > > > > We don't plan to drop it soon, but we might be forced at some point :( > > > > Yes, we know the situation sucks, but there is not much we can do about > > this :( > > Yeah... I'm contributing to QtWebKit a bit and I completely > understand they're lacking the manpower to maintain this beast in the > long run. > > The series of patches they have on top of Chromium look a lot more > sane. But I see how having what's essentially a Chromium fork is > problematic :-/ Right :-/ -- porque no respeta el orden natural en el que se leen las cosas >¿por qué top-posting es tan molesto? >>top-posting >>>¿cuál es la peor molestia en los emails de respuesta? Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.