Qtwebengine

[Valorie Zimmerman]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 10:10:11 PM Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
>> Reading backlog on channels today, I saw this in #plasma:
>>
>> [02:12] <mgraesslin> hmm looks like kmail with qtwebengine is faster
>> in opening mails, that would be positive
>> [02:12] <notmart> yay
>> [02:12] <notmart> but distribution will ever package it now?
>> [02:13] --> soee (~soee at bhr157.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined this
>> channel. [02:13] <bshah> qtwebengine?
>> [02:15] <notmart> yeah, qtwebengine and in turn anything using it
>> [02:15] <mgraesslin> well kdepim now depends on it
>> [02:15] <notmart> like, we haz a "beautiful" mobile web browser
>> written one year and an half ago... :p
>> [02:16] <mgraesslin> so distros need to either package it or drop kdepim
>> [02:18] <notmart> yep
>> [02:18] <bshah> arch packages it
>> [02:19] <bshah> but well debian and friends.. meh
>> [02:19] <mgraesslin> the deb-based distros don't
>>
>> I'm assuming that Debian doesn't package it because of policy -
>> chromium inside of qtwebengine evidently embeds its own dependencies,
>> which is ... ick.
>>
>> I looked it up on the Qt website:
>> http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-index.html
>>
>> If KDEPim will now depend on it, we have no choice, I think? Shall I
>> file a packaging bug against it?
>
> It's not just policy (Debian policy doesn't forbid embedded libraries, it just
> discourages them).  The estimate I recall reading from people on the Debian
> Qt-KDE team is that packaging QtWebEngine is about the same amout of work as
> Chromium or Firefox on their own.
>
> Take a look at the number of people that work on those (including people doing
> it as a full time job) and ask yourself how feasible it is.
>
> Scott K

Good point, but dropping KDEPim? That sounds terrible, too.

Valorie