Hello, >tags 714688 wontfix >thanks > >Closing because of #712808 I mentioned briefly in that bug report that rekonq is not the only general purpose web browser using qtwebkit: * arora is also using it and it wasn't removed from the archive. * Konqueror can be configured to use qtwebkit as engine, however it wasn't removed from the archive nor patched to not use qtwebkit * qupzilla is using it and it wasn't removed from the archive So the way I see it, debian could deal with this in three different ways: 1. removing rekonq, arora and qupzilla from unstable and patch konqueror to not use qtwebkit 2. not removing anything and let rekonq be re-uploaded to debian sid 3. remove the browser which I am maintaining (note that I am uploading fresh rekonq packages to a debian derivative) while at the same time other browsers based on qtwebkit are available in unstable My favourite option is 2. The option 1 is not my favourite but acceptable for me because at least it's coherent. The option 3 is the one which is currently being done. The way I see it it's completely unacceptable and I'm considering to escalate this to the tech-ctte if we are going to continue with it. Last but not least, if we go for the option 1 at least I would expect to be able to upload rekonq to experimental.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.