Distros and QtWebEngine
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue Apr 21 17:33:01 BST 2015
Raymond Wooninck wrote:
> Isn't this the real main issue with the new QtWebEngine and Chromium
> itself ?? In the past I have been trying to get Chromium to build using
> system version of the 3rd party stuff, but this only worked out for some
> of them. Google didn't just included the 3rd party stuff, but also altered
> it to their needs and some things never got upstreamed.
Yes, this is the main issue, for both Fedora and Debian.
> From what I understood the main reason for Fedora not to provide Chromium
> is the inclusion of the ffmpeg sources. Fedora is not allowed to provide
> binaries nor sources that contain stuff that could have legal
> implications. This was also initially openSUSE's main concern, however the
> legal department of SUSE accepted having the sourcecode on our
> BuildSercie, as long as we did not build any codecs from it that could
> cause these legal issues.
This is also a concern, but it could be fixed the same way as for other
affected packages, by ripping out the encumbered source code from the
tarball. That said, having maintained such a cleaning script for xine-lib
for a while, I am not looking forward to trying to clean FFmpeg that way
(FFmpeg is not in Fedora at all at this time; for some other packages that
bundle FFmpeg, we rm -rf the entire FFmpeg, but that is not doable for
Chromium/QtWebEngine), and the bundling of the forked FFmpeg is also against
Fedora policies to begin with.
> This situation will not likely change as that there are old bug reports
> regarding this situation and they were never resolved.
And this is exactly why we urge KDE to not require QtWebEngine for anything.
More information about the kde-core-devel