Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, 20:09:48 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> On Sunday 19 January 2014 19:13:39 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, 16:06:26 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> > > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:30:56 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 R
On Sunday 19 January 2014 19:13:39 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, 16:06:26 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:30:56 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > > I build my own version of rekonq and 2.4.
Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2014, 16:06:26 schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:30:56 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > I build my own version of rekonq and 2.4.0 is the most stable version I
> > > every had. I just copied to deb
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:30:56 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > I build my own version of rekonq and 2.4.0 is the most stable version I
> > every had. I just copied to debian dir for building, i.e. I did not
> > really
> > put work into it.
> On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > QtWebKit 2.3.0 to QtWebKit 2.3.1.
>
> Triggered by that remark, I did a search for QtWebKit 2.3 and found the
> following blog post:
> https://blogs.kde.org/2012/11/14/introducing-qtwebkit-23 which in turn
> points to https://gitoriou
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 10:48:20 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> It is still not very closely security supported upstream, but it is
> something we should look into at one point.
Ok, thanks.
> If interested in helping, please contact me (svuorela) on irc.debian.org
> or in #debian-kde channel.
I don
On 2013-12-04, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Would that fix the situation of an unmaintained QtWebKit?
It is still not very closely security supported upstream, but it is
something we should look into at one point.
If interested in helping, please contact me (svuorela) on irc.debian.org
or in #debia
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> QtWebKit 2.3.0 to QtWebKit 2.3.1.
Triggered by that remark, I did a search for QtWebKit 2.3 and found the
following blog post: https://blogs.kde.org/2012/11/14/introducing-qtwebkit-23
which in turn points to https://gitorious.org/webkit/
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 22:25:51 Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> I build my own version of rekonq and 2.4.0 is the most stable version I
> every had. I just copied to debian dir for building, i.e. I did not really
> put work into it.
I forgot the link, if somebody wants to make us of it:
http://bokomo
On Monday 02 December 2013 21:33:50 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-12-02, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > What is the oppinion of the Debian Qt/KDE team on this?
>
> I don't think the Debian Qt/KDE team has a opinion. Debian Qt/KDE team
> maintains QtWebkit, and the kpart-webkit besides khtml. I als
On Monday 02 December 2013 16:28:32 José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote:
> Some time ago it was removed - allegedly - for security reasons with
> regarding to qtwebkit.
Ok, thanks.
Sorry, didn't know it was such a provocative question.
--
GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6
signature.asc
Description: This i
On 2013-12-02, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> What is the oppinion of the Debian Qt/KDE team on this?
I don't think the Debian Qt/KDE team has a opinion. Debian Qt/KDE team
maintains QtWebkit, and the kpart-webkit besides khtml. I also maintain
Arora.
I have no plans to work on rekonq but I also do
Am Montag, 2. Dezember 2013, 18:52:11 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
> On 2013-12-02, José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote:
> > So at this point I have two possible conclusions about that "diversity
> > statement"[1] which generated some debate in the mailing lists, it's
> > either: a) packaging qtwebkit does
Sune Vuorela
> On 2013-12-02, José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote:
> > So at this point I have two possible conclusions about that "diversity
> > statement"[1] which generated some debate in the mailing lists, it's
> > either: a) packaging qtwebkit doesn't count as a "contribution which
> > interac
On 2013-12-02, José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote:
> So at this point I have two possible conclusions about that "diversity
> statement"[1] which generated some debate in the mailing lists, it's either:
> a) packaging qtwebkit doesn't count as a "contribution which interacts
> constructively with
On Monday, 02 December, 2013 16:28:32 José Manuel Santamaría Lema wrote:
> Diederik de Haas
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I just found a website that doesn't display properly in iceweasel, so I
> > wanted to try it with rekonq, only to find it's no longer in the archives.
> > What happened and will rekonq r
Diederik de Haas
> Hi!
>
> I just found a website that doesn't display properly in iceweasel, so I
> wanted to try it with rekonq, only to find it's no longer in the archives.
> What happened and will rekonq return to the archives?
>
> Cheers,
> Diederik
Some time ago it was removed - alleged
Hi!
I just found a website that doesn't display properly in iceweasel, so I wanted
to try it with rekonq, only to find it's no longer in the archives.
What happened and will rekonq return to the archives?
Cheers,
Diederik
--
GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6
signature.asc
Description: This is a digita
18 matches
Mail list logo
