El lun, 02-06-2014 a las 09:55 +0200, Alberto Garcia escribió: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > > > hmm, there's also the jsc binary, I guess that even conflicts with > > > any other WebKit port, doesn't qtwebkit install a jsc binary as > > > well? > > > > Does anything actually use the jsc binary? Could maybe just drop it? > > Yes, there are people using it, I'm actually shipping it in Debian > after one user requested it. But I don't think there's anything to > worry about it. > > > Having conflicting headers would actually be _somewhat_ okay for > > binary distributions such as Fedora or Debian, but source based > > distros and BSD ports maintainers are definitely going to complain > > when they can't install headers for webkit1 and webkit2 in parallel. > > There's one more thing that we didn't mention: we are talking all the > time about distributions, but this will also affect GNOME itself: > since most applications are still using WebKit1, we need to have two > separate WebkitGTK+ tarballs in the GNOME jhbuild, much like we do > already with GTK+2 and GTK+3.
In this case we can just add a new "module" webkit1 that uses webkitgtk 2.4.x while the webkit module uses 2.5.x. And then update the modules that depend on webkit1. > Berto > _______________________________________________ > webkit-gtk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-gtk > -- Carlos Garcia Campos http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF3D322D0EC4582C3
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ webkit-gtk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-gtk
