Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium

[Ricardo Wurmus]

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