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 [1]:
> 
> * 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> [1] 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 :)

> [1] http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2015-June/022004.html
> 
> > > and binary
> > > distributions starting with Qt 5.6[1] 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[2] 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/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-- 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk

Reply via email to