Raymond Wooninck wrote: > Isn't this the real main issue with the new QtWebEngine and Chromium > itself ?? In the past I have been trying to get Chromium to build using > system version of the 3rd party stuff, but this only worked out for some > of them. Google didn't just included the 3rd party stuff, but also altered > it to their needs and some things never got upstreamed.
Yes, this is the main issue, for both Fedora and Debian. > From what I understood the main reason for Fedora not to provide Chromium > is the inclusion of the ffmpeg sources. Fedora is not allowed to provide > binaries nor sources that contain stuff that could have legal > implications. This was also initially openSUSE's main concern, however the > legal department of SUSE accepted having the sourcecode on our > BuildSercie, as long as we did not build any codecs from it that could > cause these legal issues. This is also a concern, but it could be fixed the same way as for other affected packages, by ripping out the encumbered source code from the tarball. That said, having maintained such a cleaning script for xine-lib for a while, I am not looking forward to trying to clean FFmpeg that way (FFmpeg is not in Fedora at all at this time; for some other packages that bundle FFmpeg, we rm -rf the entire FFmpeg, but that is not doable for Chromium/QtWebEngine), and the bundling of the forked FFmpeg is also against Fedora policies to begin with. > This situation will not likely change as that there are old bug reports > regarding this situation and they were never resolved. And this is exactly why we urge KDE to not require QtWebEngine for anything. Kevin Kofler