On Tuesday 22 December 2015 20:03:22 Thomas Lübking wrote: > On Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2015 19:44:21 CEST, Aleix Pol wrote: > > compiling for some time, but that's not a reason to rely on it on our > > side. > > Sure, getting rid of it is mandatory. > What worries me is that this *break* happens in a *minor* Qt release. Should > generally not happen. Period. > > It should still be released and everytime you try to build against it > (include it) and didn't "#define > I_KNOW_WEBKIT_IS_BITROT_AND_AM_PORTING_TO_QT_WEBENGINE_ALREADY" you get a > compiler error. > > The idea that users may have remainders of QtWebKit 5.5 on their disk (or > not and thus unresolvable linkage) and install Qt 5.6 and still have (not > recompiled) client code that is now gonna crash scares me a bit - it > doesn't really improve reputation. Distros will virtually *have* to provide > downstream webkit solutions to cover 3rd party installs and we'll get > "somthing broke" reports on this all over the place.
What we distro packagers are going to do is to recompile QtWebkit for as long ans possible/necessary. IIRC Thiago said that it didn't use private stuff, so recompiling should be more than enough (in case it is really needed). -- Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be very selective about who it decides to make friends with. Unknown - http://www.linfo.org/q_unix.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
