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.
I thought that Chromium was non-free ??
J'
--
Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
