Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> David Craven <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> What do you think?  The alternative is to drop Texmaker and all the
>>>> other packages that depend on Chromium as distributed by Qt.
>>>
>>> Weren't you vocal on IRC about bundling and the hell it brings? Sounds
>>> like bundling is ok when it suits you... :)
>>
>> I have no problems dropping Texmaker.  I’m not even using it.
>
> Ouch.  I was the one who submitted the package when the Qt modules
> weren't unbundled yet (I guess).  Now, because of a change of how we
> package Qt, we're ready to remove a program that used to work just
> fine..?
>
> What's next?  Throw the calibre package out of the window too because
> it's broken for GNU Guix users?

Today I don’t seem to be communicating effectively.  What I meant was
that *personally* I have no interest in this software, which should be
sufficient to defuse the insinuation that I think “bundling is ok when
it suits [me]” (a remark I consider needlessly inflammatory, despite the
emoticon).

Obviously, I haven’t removed Texmaker — that would have been a simpler
fix to a broken build than what I actually did: investigating the issue,
packaging up more Qt modules, looking into the sources of qtwebengine,
and discussing what to do on the mailing list.

All I’m saying is that we must do *something* because right now the
situation is just as if we had dropped Texmaker: it cannot be built,
neither on Hydra nor on individual people’s machines.  And it won’t be
buildable unless someone does the work.  Hence my email.

I feel I’ve spent too much time of my Saturday on this already.  I’m not
very motivated to continue working on this.

~~ Ricardo