[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium
From: |
Efraim Flashner |
Subject: |
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Oct 2016 23:18:05 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) |
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Hi Guix,
>
> our build of the “texmaker” package is broken ever since we disabled the
> webkit module of our Qt package. I’m currently looking into packaging
> up the needed Qt modules, but the obvious question remains: do we want
> this? “qtwebengine” not only bundles chromium, chromium itself also
> bundles a whole bunch of other stuff.
>
> Personally, I think it’s acceptable to package “qtwebengine” because
> ultimately it’s up to the Qt and Chromium developers to keep their
> software secure — and it’s up to the developers of software like
> Texmaker to choose their dependencies wisely. As long as we keep
> Chromium out of our default “qt” package, thereby preventing it from
> being installed for every Qt application, I think we’re good.
>
> What do you think? The alternative is to drop Texmaker and all the
> other packages that depend on Chromium as distributed by Qt.
>
> ~~ Ricardo
>
AFAIK Chromium doesn't modify any of its bundled software. Would it make
sense to create a chromium-source package that replaces the bundled
sources with our sources, allowing us to keep the chromium source and
the bundled source up-to-date. Then we could use this new
'chromium-source' package as a replacement source for
chromium/inox/qtwebengine?
--
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium, David Craven, 2016/10/08
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium,
Efraim Flashner <=