On Sunday, December 24, 2023 3:50:26 AM MST Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If it ends up not being feasible to backport the entire Qt WebEngine from
> > the next LTS release, then we could look at cherry-picking all of the
> > security commits. This would be, by far, the most time-intensive solution.
> >
On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 03:55:15PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>...
> In a hypothetical world where Qt 6.2 LTS had shipped with bookworm, we could
> build any Qt WebEngine from 6.2, 6.3, or 6.4 against it without problem.
> Initially it might seem best to build the highest possible, but because
Hello,
I'm Ratchanan Srirattanamet, and I'm a "maintainer" of the QtWebEngine
for Ubuntu Touch (I usually pull from Debian unstable and add our
patches). As such, I have a few insights and ideas regarding this.
On 07-12-2023 18:49, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> If this is deemed inappropriate for
Hi Soren,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:48:44PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 3:00:23 AM MST Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> > Just one particular class (QQuickWebEngineDownloadItem) is private. My guess
> > is that it’s upstream oversight, because upstream documentation
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> I must admit that I have no personal experience with connecting QML and C++.
I don’t have any personal experience with that too.
> But it seems to me from the documentation Qt has produced there are several
> ways to bridge the
Hi Soren!
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:23:15PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 7:01:47 AM MST Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> > Using a stub header results in dependency on private ABI just like including
> > a normal header.
>
> I wonder if that just happens for the QML
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:34:17AM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:11:10 AM MST Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I don't know what's going on with the headers, but there is a reason why
> > the dependency gets generated:
> >
> > $ nm -D /usr/bin/angelfish-webapp |
Hi Soren!
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2023 4:10:42 PM MST Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 01:22:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > > Bookworm released with qtwebengine-opensource-src 5.15.8+dfsg-1, but
> > >
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2023 4:10:42 PM MST Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 01:22:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > > Bookworm released with qtwebengine-opensource-src 5.15.8+dfsg-1, but
> > >
Hej,
Am Sonntag, 17. Dezember 2023, 00:33:58 CET schrieb Soren Stoutner:
[...]
> > No matter what angelfish does, qtwebview-opensource-src will in any
> > case also need a rebuild.
>
> Qt WebView is deprecated upstream. It was based on the same Apple
> WebKit source that WebViewGTK uses. It
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 01:22:13PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>...
> Bookworm released with qtwebengine-opensource-src 5.15.8+dfsg-1, but
> 5.15.13+dfsg-1~deb12u1 was later uploaded.
>...
That's not true, bookworm released with 5.15.13+dfsg-1~deb12u1.
> At this point, the biggest remaining
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > That is a good point. However, I consider full coverage of security support
> > for stable to be an improvement over the current situation. Explicitly
> > stating that security support is not shipped for oldstable does not do any
> >
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:29:43PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:19:17 PM MST Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Non-LTS oldstable is the 3rd year of stable security support,
> > this is required for giving users time to schedule the invasive
> > upgrades to a new Debian
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:49:55PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> Currently there is no real security support for Qt WebEngine in
> stable, which is an oversight that might surprise many Debian users.
> The purpose of this discussion is to figure out the best way to
> change that.
Hello,
I would
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:48:08PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>...
> This plan does not address oldstable security support.
>...
Non-LTS oldstable is the 3rd year of stable security support,
this is required for giving users time to schedule the invasive
upgrades to a new Debian stable at a
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:49:55PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>...
> Currently there is no real security support for Qt WebEngine in stable, which
> is an oversight that might surprise many Debian users. The purpose of this
> discussion is to figure out the best way to change that.
This is
Hi Soren,
On 14-12-2023 08:45, Soren Stoutner wrote:
How do you recommend we change that?
I think you're having the right discussion. I'm not a Stable Release
Manager so I don't feel authoritative about stable. However, in my
*personal* opinion and reflected in a proposal [1] I'm driving
Hi everyone,
On Do 14 Dez 2023 00:38:29 CET, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Patrick,
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:00:23 PM MST Patrick Franz wrote:
Don't forget that the open-source Qt LTS releases are delayed by a year.
I wasn’t aware of that. Can you please elaborate on how that timeline
Hi Soren,
On 14-12-2023 04:49, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Currently there is no real security support for Qt WebEngine in stable, which
is an oversight that might surprise many Debian users.
It's explicitly documented in the release notes:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 02:19:04PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>...
> How feasible would it be to make sure that stable always ships with paired
> LTS releases of
> KDE and Qt? As you point out above, those release windows might not line up
> exactly with
> Debian’s release window, but it
Hej Soren,
Am Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2023, 22:19:04 CET schrieb Soren Stoutner:
[...]
> Qt has LTS releases about every 18 months and supports them for 36
> months (three years). This means there are always two active LTS
> releases. Unless there is an unusually long freeze, stable should
> end
Hej,
Am Freitag, 8. Dezember 2023, 02:49:56 CET schrieb Soren Stoutner:
[...]
> For the Qt and KDE maintainers, how feasible would it be
> to always make sure an LTS release of Qt is what is shipped in stable
> releases?
Probably not very feasible.
One issue is that Debian & Qt have different
22 matches
Mail list logo
