That is indeed an important point we have to check (with upstream) and discuss. Kevin Kofler: Do you know anything about this? Greetings, Christian On 07/13/2016 10:32 AM, Mustafa Muhammad wrote: > The biggest problem I see (bigger than extensions, which I care about > a lot), is security updates, will QtWebEngine be updated immediately > with upstream Chromium (Blink)? > > "This version of Qt WebEngine is based on Chromium snapshot version > 45.0.2554.101, with additional security fixes from the 46, 47 and 48 > branches of the Chromium Project." [1] > > What about 49, 50, 51? Chrome 48, based on Chromium 48, was release on > January 20, 2016, (best thing I found regarding Chromium 48 was Nov > 13th, 2015 from [3]) > > This is several months (6~8) worth of "known" security > vulnerabilities, fixed upstream in later releases. > If they reach QtWebEngine in a timely manner, this should be OK, if we > wait for the next QtWebEngine, this is not acceptable. > > Regards > Mustafa > > > > > [1] https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-overview.html > [2] https://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2016/01/stable-channel-update_20.html > [3] https://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> Extensions (especially compatibility with extensions designed for a >>> specific >>> browser; note that QupZilla does have an extension API, it's just that it >>> is >>> not currently being used by third-party developers) are not required >>> functionality for a web browser. >> >> Yes, however people (myself in particular) become dependent on certain >> extensions: >> Lastpass, Prime Player, Checker Plus, just to name a few. The unfortunate >> reality is >> unless projects adopt the chrome extension model (as Firefox is doing) not >> many are >> going to be available. >> >> That said, it really just depends on what is the criteria for the Fedora KDE >> default web >> browser. If Qt based is a criteria, I would tend to agree that one would >> have a very >> difficult time arguing against QupZilla. If it weren't for the extension >> issue, I would use >> it over Chrome/Chromium. It has many nice features... and bizarrely enough >> it actually >> uses Pepper Flash from Chrome if you have Chrome installed --- (which is >> required for Google Music >> for some weird reason). That was a pleasant surprise it worked >> automagically. The integrated speed dial >> and adblock are also nice. As far as speed, it seems much faster than >> Firefox, especially at >> startup. My firefox seems to just hang there for a few moments. Don't have >> that issue with >> Chrome/Chromium or QupZilla. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kde mailing list >> kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > kde mailing list > kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
