Current state we have with Qt 5.6.1: Chromium security fixes up to 51.0.2704.63 On 07/13/2016 11:31 AM, Christian Dersch wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
