From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 23:18:05 +0300 Message-ID: <20161008201805.GA18485@macbook42.flashner.co.il> References: <877f9kufxx.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsy4d-0007wU-Ta for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:18:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsy4Z-0002hb-Nu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:18:22 -0400 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:42663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsy4Z-0002dj-Gd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:18:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877f9kufxx.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Hi Guix, >=20 > our build of the =E2=80=9Ctexmaker=E2=80=9D package is broken ever since = we disabled the > webkit module of our Qt package. I=E2=80=99m currently looking into pack= aging > up the needed Qt modules, but the obvious question remains: do we want > this? =E2=80=9Cqtwebengine=E2=80=9D not only bundles chromium, chromium = itself also > bundles a whole bunch of other stuff. >=20 > Personally, I think it=E2=80=99s acceptable to package =E2=80=9Cqtwebengi= ne=E2=80=9D because > ultimately it=E2=80=99s up to the Qt and Chromium developers to keep their > software secure =E2=80=94 and it=E2=80=99s up to the developers of softwa= re like > Texmaker to choose their dependencies wisely. As long as we keep > Chromium out of our default =E2=80=9Cqt=E2=80=9D package, thereby prevent= ing it from > being installed for every Qt application, I think we=E2=80=99re good. >=20 > What do you think? The alternative is to drop Texmaker and all the > other packages that depend on Chromium as distributed by Qt. >=20 > ~~ Ricardo >=20 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? --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX+VRxAAoJEPTB05F+rO6TB7EP/j1N+fV/V1fHHEwvCxhptQLx miQ6WchVVbBx11/f+qDwkrFHssv5vhJyJwxD/K8JI+UPhoALSj7Tpz21P+Xex5Pe tyFW496Picfodt5KsZ0LwSRdW47pIyAIrMO3KKDyu7CzcYMOFx8tFVxVKooz2EWE lYvOweI1eu+BV/EEPEHfJIuDLIxyG1tBALWE8UpZAMqO9TA5k6VhZ9grTo0ephkk xdi/ZDvSbfQmBUbFMPxF1YFgzABkTekoZKgJktMvZ8IRfH5fHtLzLYaN0JYpSK3P x1Bm09+qNnez7X5lPJAy7rzmVf14N20UvS4dVAS9LYwkq9u+myOf80P3rRnJmNy2 R/9iEyzr9gMb/L8eg+8dYiQjp04kotsEelvxcZ4wWkdn/7qjkwLHmG5w5fiSCi/k tdjVQGX1uOZXEQFLLdNetOk8EFnjg+ua0mqnwHSCJVe4D0p6cgJy6fY4FRvROlGf ArHTwfhAr31yZ3pfrXCA0c/sO+8MJZoAmTYUiFeBNjgerEXQudVyUZK8u36fzE1X Fu8Gh0L4Z9TrKrYA+ZanGIhgmPHNRUSe4D40vQj4JPwFoFmwwssg16NLSl/C+Rbn C03reKUhZcuffxlObUqG10zmSiQSJ0sblRN4pZmOvvZMqbeGHSOck0fTmo8zQswP EtCu/J8QQRvyxDJOWJbj =48RQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--