Qtwebengine

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 11:52:49 PM Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> 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

Agreed, but there's only so much we can do.  I've used kmail for well over a 
decade and it looks like I'm going to have to find something else.

Scott K