Re: qtwenengine anybody?

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> mike.rosset@gmail.com writes:
>
>> My conclusion is this is going to be way more work then the
>> benefits. And once this was achieved it still needs to be
>> maintained. Keep in mind QT already has a patch re base process with
>> changes that might conflict with ungoogled-chrome. I think the better
>> approach is to try and fix the in tree dependencies upstream. and let it
>> trick down to the guix declaration.
>>
>> In a more ideal world I think QT and the ungogogled project should be
>> working together since there goals are much on par.
>
> Totally, I think you are making a lot of sense here.
> Since you are the most knowledgeable on the topic, would you mind
> reporting this to upstream and include the links in your patch?  Thanks!
>
> Let me know if there are more changes you'd like to include to your
> patch.
> If no one objects, I'll merge it within a week.

I’m sorry for making this harder, but I would very much like to first
see evidence that the problematic features of Chromium have in fact been
addressed by QT upstream.

Does the code include DRM support, for example?  Does it phone home?
Can we see the patches that upstream applied to the Chromium sources?

--
Ricardo