Distros and QtWebEngine

[Bèrto ëd Sèra]

These are the days I understand why I use gentoo (despite the headaches it
gives me every once in a while). No, I cannot use anything that does not
have chromium, whatever the reason may be, sorry.

Both sides are right, there is not human labour enough to maintain the
stuff, and cutting stuff's quality to keep up with the lack of labour means
delivering an inferior product nobody would really use. I cannot see any
way out of this. I'll keep building my own stuff as long as I can, but the
day there won't be any linux pc desktop any more is getting closer by the
minute. It's very much the end of an era.

On 21 April 2015 at 09:23, Sandro Knauß <knauss at kolabsys.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> At the moment there is a discussion in kde-core-devel, that distros won't
> ship
> QtWebEngine (at least Debian and Fedora). And ubuntu also will follow the
> decision of debian.
>
> The only part so far, that depends on QtWebEngine in kdepim is
> KSieveUi::SieveEditorWebView
>
> it only shows links like: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5173
> (some people said, that these kind of links should be easy to display with
> a
> QText*)
>
> Regards,
>
> sandro
>
> --
> Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 13:28:59 schrieb Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
> Meyer:
> > Hi everyone! I'm one of Debian's Qt maintainers and I'm writing here due
> to
> > the problem that QtWebEngine poses for us distros (in this case, at least
> > Debian and Fedora).
> >
> > I know that kdepim seems to depend on it now. Sadly QtWebEngine it's
> quite a
> > hard (very hard) piece of software to package.
> >
> > It embeds quite a lot of 3rd party stuff which we distros don't accept
> (in
> > different grades depending on the distro) as we require to build using
> the
> > system versions. Fedora's Rex Dieter tells me that's actually why
> chromium
> > is not available for them.
> >
> > Moreover we can't build debugging symbols on most archs due to the
> enormous
> > amount of RAM+swap it involves in the linking process (more than 8GB last
> > time I checked). This is at least the same as QtWebKit, but seems to be
> > getting worse.
> >
> > Yes, we do understand that QtWebEngine is technically superior to any
> other
> > thing out there but making that code an acceptable package is another
> thing.
> >
> > So basically what I'm trying to say is: don't expect us down streamers to
> > easily package QtWebEngine soon, if we ever get to it.
> >
> > I'm really sorry if this comes as "bad news", but the reality is
> currently
> > this :(
>
> --
> Sandro Knauß
> Software Developer
>
> Kolab Systems AG
> Zürich, Switzerland
>
> e: knauss at kolabsystems.com
> t: +41 43 501 66 91
> w: https://kolabsystems.com
>
> pgp: CE81539E Sandro Knauß




-- 
==============================
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a
darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20150421/7035743d/attachment.htm>