On 3/1/22 22:44, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Demi Marie Obenour wrote: >> Me too. I am surprised that the answer is not to automatically >> download and install Canonical’s Snap package; they seem to have >> figured out everything already. Arch manages to do it by having very >> few patches and using the upstream source tarball. > > If you think that just using the binary blobs provided by upstream or some > third party (e.g., Canonical) is a solution for anything, you clearly have > not understood how distribution packaging works. Arch uses the upstream *source* code, but not the binaries, if I understand correctly. They just don’t have anywhere near as many patches as Fedora does. I suspect this is a combination of factors. First, Arch builds use clang and more bundled libraries, so they are more similar to what Google itself uses and break less often. Second, Arch has zero problems with shipping patent-encumbered media codecs, as (if I recall correctly) Arch is based in a nation where such patents simply are not enforceable. So they can just use the codecs that Chromium comes with already. > At most, that approach can work for leaf applications such as the Chromium > browser, but the Chromium code is also used in QtWebEngine and in Electron, > both of which are used to build many desktop applications. QtWebEngine is > used in browsers (Falkon, Angelfish), mail clients (KMail, Kontact), etc. Electron is going to be a nightmare for all sorts of other reasons, starting with the need to rebuild all of the minified JavaScript, CSS, and HTML from unminified source code. Can Fedora just reuse the upstream QtWebEngine build scripts? > As far as qt5-qtwebengine is concerned, there is no way I can issue a > security update at this time because the security fixes have not been > backported by Qt upstream yet: > https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=87-based > The fixes up to CVE-2021-4102 are included in the 5.15.8 security update > that I pushed, CVE-2022-* are not backported upstream yet. > > (Well, technically, I suppose I could attempt to backport them from 90- > based, i.e., from QtWebengine 6.2: > https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=90-based > or even directly from Chromium upstream, but that is extremely time- > consuming and not something I can do on a regular basis.) What would it take to get tall of the users of QtWebEngine onto 6.2? I don’t think Fedora should ship any version of QtWebEngine except the latest, since only the latest version appears to get regular patches. > And for a library such as QtWebEngine, Snap or Flatpak do not work at all. Yeah, but for QtWebEngine I imagine much of the work is handled by The Qt Company and Fedora can just reuse their build scripts. > Even if you only care about the standalone Chromium, using a third-party > blob will lose you the benefits of distribution packaging. For standalone Chromium, a blob that gets regular security updates is better than a proper package that does not. The first is at least safe to use, the second isn’t. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
