Policy regarding QtWebKit and QtScript

Thomas Friedrichsmeier thomas.friedrichsmeier at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Sat Mar 5 07:09:22 GMT 2016


On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:42:26 +0100
Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de> wrote:
> 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.

I'm late to this thread, I know. But in fact on Windows the situation
is arguably a bit worse: QtWebEngine can _only_ be compiled using (free
as in beer) MSVC 2013. In particular, MinGW is explicitly _not_

This is not only an uncomfortable situation for a free software project
to be in. If you're trying to interface with third libraries that
happen to be MinGW-only, for various reasons, it can be between
no-fun-at-all, and downright incompatibility. Remember, the C++-ABI is
just not compatible between MinGW and MSVC.

I have no idea how hard it would be to resolve this (it is rumored to
be hard), but until it is, I would advise KDE projects to be very
reluctant about moving away from QtWebKit, unless and until they have
very compelling reason to do so. For use cases such as "display some
trusted local HTML files", I think QtWebKit is still the tool of choice.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20160305/be6b37e2/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list