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_2...
> [3]
https://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
>> 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org
> _______________________________________________
> kde mailing list
> kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org