Policy regarding QtWebKit and QtScript

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On Tuesday 22 December 2015 20:03:22 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> On Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2015 19:44:21 CEST, Aleix Pol wrote:
> > compiling for some time, but that's not a reason to rely on it on our
> > side.
> 
> Sure, getting rid of it is mandatory.
> What worries me is that this *break* happens in a *minor* Qt release. Should
> generally not happen. Period.
> 
> It should still be released and everytime you try to build against it
> (include it) and didn't "#define
> I_KNOW_WEBKIT_IS_BITROT_AND_AM_PORTING_TO_QT_WEBENGINE_ALREADY" you get a
> compiler error.
> 
> The idea that users may have remainders of QtWebKit 5.5 on their disk (or
> not and thus unresolvable linkage) and install Qt 5.6 and still have (not
> recompiled) client code that is now gonna crash scares me a bit - it
> doesn't really improve reputation. Distros will virtually *have* to provide
> downstream webkit solutions to cover 3rd party installs and we'll get
> "somthing broke" reports on this all over the place.

What we distro packagers are going to do is to recompile QtWebkit for as long 
ans possible/necessary.

IIRC Thiago said that it didn't use private stuff, so recompiling should be 
more than enough (in case it is really needed).

-- 
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who it decides to make friends with.
  Unknown - http://www.linfo.org/q_unix.html

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20151222/e130c8ad/attachment.sig>