Policy regarding QtWebKit and QtScript

[Milian Wolff]

On Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2015 12:14:06 CET Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 December 2015 16:07:06 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> 
> wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the FreeBSD guys say that QtWebEngine (is that what
> the new thing is called) is an absolute terror to get building in FreeBSD.
> There are apparently source-compatibility issues and it takes a great big
> stonkin' machine to compile it at all.

Sorry, but how is "it takes long to compile" and argument for or against a 
piece of software if there is no feature equivalent alternative that takes 
less time to compile?

Qt WebEngine is far easier to compile than Qt WebKit in my experience, and it 
certainly doesn't take significantly longer. And of course the former is far 
superior than the latter.

And talking about compile times: Ever compiled LLVM + Clang? It takes ages, 
but it's simply worth it...

-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20151225/994f2e8a/attachment.sig>