Re: WebKitGTK+ in Balsa

Hi Albrecht:

On 08/29/2016 03:04:07 PM Mon, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
Hi Peter:

Am 29.08.16 00:55 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
In a recent bug[1], Jeremy Bicha has asked that we remove support for the original webkit widget in Balsa. 
I've been using the new widget in builds from git (gtk3 branch) for a year or two with no issues other than 
those described above. I'm inclined to follow Jeremy's advice, and remove support for the old widget, at 
least in the gtk3 branch. Would this cause problems for anyone?

Looking for the package libwebkit2gtk in the still officially supported Debian based distos:
- Debian wheezy (oldstable, EOL May 2018) does not support it;
- Debian jessie (stable, EOL May 2020) includes libwebkit2gtk-3.0 rev. 2.4.9 and libwebkit2gtk-4.0 rev. 2.6.2;
- Ubuntu precise (12.04LTS, EOL April 2017) does not support it;
- Ubuntu trusty (14.04LTS, EOL April 2019) includes libwebkit2gtk-3.0 2.4.10;
- Ubuntu xenial (16.04LTS, EOL April 2021) includes libwebkit2gtk-3.0 rev. 2.4.10 and libwebkit2gtk-4.0 rev. 

They all come with an outdated (2.4.x) balsa version, though.  Therefore, I vote for keeping webkit support 
in Balsa until at least May 2018 (for wheezy), as to enable building balsa 2.5 from source without the need 
to manually build further dependencies.

I'm not sure if it is possible to build the same code against libwebkit2gtk-3.0 and -4.0.  If not, IMO we 
should keep webkit support until the EOL of Ubuntu trusty (i.e. April 2019).

I don't know the difference between libwebkit2gtk-3.0 and libwebkit2gtk-4.0; the webkit2 API was unstable 
during development, so perhaps libwebkit2gtk-3.0 signifies an unstable version. I don't recall whether Balsa 
depended on any part of the API that changed during development; if not, it would probably build against the 
libwebkit2gtk-3.0 package, but I can't test that. Perhaps someone could test the current Balsa gtk3 branch in 
Ubuntu trusty.

Maybe we could dump a warning from configure when webkit is selected,

Yes, that seems like the least we could do...

or add a note in the Readme/install instructions (which are *terribly* outdated anyway).

Patch, anyone?



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]