From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 10:14:33 +0200
Message-ID: <87shs7xno6.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <877f9kufxx.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35344)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1bsml9-0004s3-Mt
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:13:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1bsml5-0008TX-LT
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:13:30 -0400
In-reply-to: <877f9kufxx.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>


Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> 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.

I'm not super familiar with Qt modules anymore, but can't we just
package the QtWebKit module?  How does QtWebEngine relate to QtWebKit?

Also, I know that Calibre is broken (it compiles file, but it doesn't
start anymore) since we are missing the QtWebKit module.

Thanks for your efforts for looking into this.

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen