Policy regarding QtWebKit and QtScript

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer perezmeyer at gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 19:07:06 GMT 2015

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
> 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
-------------- 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>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list