Policy regarding QtWebKit and QtScript

[Allan Sandfeld Jensen]

On Tuesday 29 December 2015, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 December 2015 01:34:46 Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> > There is a little chance QtWebEngine will be ported on OpenBSD: if
> > someone will come in and fix Chromium and QtWebEngine to bundle less,
> > at least. I won't volunteer: handling a few hundreds of KDE ports +
> > ports of Qt itself is already big enough task for me.
> > 
> > So, again, it was my seeing, both for today and tomorrow. Now I'm back
> > to porting other KDE5 stuff. Thank you for reading!
> 
> Thank you, Vadim. I spent an hour or two on qtwebengine today. I got the
> feeling that the motto is "y0 dawg, i hear you like build systems so i put
> a buildsystyem in your buildsystem so you can buildsystem while you
> buildsystem". It is a frustrating experience.
> 
> I'm trying hard to not make this sound like whining, really.
> 
>  - Why am I building ninja when it's already packaged externally?
a) That is a how Chromium does it and b) it is really convenient on platforms 
that doesn't have package managers that can easily download a prebuild version 
of ninja (most platforms). Adding that Chromium tend to depend on specific 
versions, it not affecting the shipped result, and is relatively fast to 
build, it is probably not worth the trouble.

>  - Why am I building yasm?
>  - Same applies to most of the bundled stuff. A lot of the FreeBSD patches
> for Chromium itself are, indeed, unbundlings. But those need to be re-done
> for webengine, because who knows how the versions differ.
We have already done third-party library unbundling in Qt 5.6.

>  - The qmake and gyp (horse pucky!) are strongly tied into
> linux/mac/boot2qt, so finding all the bits and pieces that need adjusting
> is tricky.
The linux parts probably just need to be split into general posix/unix parts 
and linux parts, but yes it has to happen several places.

Best regards
`Allan