On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 8:14:52 PM AEST Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > > > I think it's premature to do so now, *especially* if qupzilla ends up > > getting renamed soon. Only after it's out of incubation and name/code > > stabilizes, then consider it. > > > How many things need to happen until you will consider it? First, you'd only > consider it once there was a stable release of QupZilla. That happened. > Then, you'd only consider it once it was tested for an entire Fedora > release cycle. That happened, too. Now, you'll only consider it once it > becomes an official part of KDE. What will need to happen next? > > When can the KDE Spin finally default to a Qt browser that will soon be the > official KDE browser? Are we getting a bit over-cooked for this somewhat trivial issue? We really only care about what gets put on the live boot image. Beyond that, once its installed, the user can install whatever browser they want via whatever method. The key part is that it needs to be able to bring up web pages from within a live boot - which just about any of the available choices do. Lets take out the personal preferences and plugin issues aside - because those are well and truly a post-install option. I'm all for *any* browser - but lets only ship one browser in the image - not multiple. If Qupzilla fits the bill, lets use it. Otherwise, standardise on something else - and leave the choice to the user as a post-install option. -- Steven Haigh 📧 netwiz@xxxxxxxxx 💻 http://www.crc.id.au 📞 +61 (3) 9001 6090 📱 0412 935 897
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
