Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium

[David Craven]

> What do you think?  The alternative is to drop Texmaker and all the
> other packages that depend on Chromium as distributed by Qt.

Weren't you vocal on IRC about bundling and the hell it brings? Sounds
like bundling is ok when it suits you... :) To be fair I've looked
into packaging chromium (with the inox patchset applied) [0] and I
came to the conclusion that it's impossible to debundle 100% (unless
you are a full-time chromium developer working on just this and fix
all the bugs that occur when using upstream packages etc. other
distros only unbundle chromium to an extent, it looks like gentoo
comes closest).

I'm running into a python issue: EOF where object expected when
importing certain modules during the build. When I execute the command
that ninja ran manually it succeeds, which is weird. If I run ninja
again to continue the build it fails on the next command with the same
error. If you'd like to look into this...

> I thought that Chromium was non-free ??

That's not quite true. The reason why chromium is sometimes considered
non-free is because of some default build settings it uses. You can
disable support for the chrome webstore and the hangouts extension,
etc. It also shouldn't be confused with Chrome which is indeed
non-free.

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

QtWebKit is deprecated and no longer part of qt 5.7.

[0] 
https://github.com/dvc94ch/guix/commit/41bbf4060e805c8607ab9dc05012c1f929f6699e