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   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted