[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium |
Date: |
Sat, 08 Oct 2016 11:45:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 25.1.1 |
David Craven <address@hidden> writes:
>> I have no problems dropping Texmaker. I’m not even using it.
>
> That would be a shame, but I'm not using it either... I don't think
> there's a problem with bundling in this case, I just don't understand
> why you where against bundling in cargo's case, but not this one,
> that's all. I'm all for striving for ideals and perfectionism, as long
> as we keep in mind that nothing is perfect and stay pragmatic.
The situation with Texmaker is: we used to have a build of Qt where
qtwebengine was included. (This was before we had a set of modular Qt
packages, IIRC.) Then we ripped qtwebengine out of the monolithic “qt”
package for good reasons. As a result a couple of packages broke.
So this is about fixing a regression. We still got rid of bundling for
*most* packages using Qt.
The approach you suggested for cargo (a new package) is to make bundling
the default and in the build system, if I understood correctly.
We’ve gone to great lengths to avoid bundling in providing other
packages. See the Java bootstrap, for example, or Ruby. I don’t think
it’s “perfectionist” to apply the same standards to other languages and
build systems.
~~ Ricardo
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium, John Darrington, 2016/10/08
Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium, Danny Milosavljevic, 2016/10/08