Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:38:34
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=igTc+e85CMbTPWbLQmQyVxoJXEppMuCyxO4R7ksiG4Q@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages by Thomas Kahle
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o> wrote:
> I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with > out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations.  Every single > stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is > a security stabilization.  Chromium goes stable early and with the 'it's > a security-bug, small problems can be ingored'-hat on.
If it gets too out of hand we could always do the Debian thing and backport patches (but for a period of weeks to months, not moths to years). That obviously has problems of its own. I get that if I want to be a btrfs pioneer I might have to live with doing daily git updates or whatever. What I don't get is that a mainstream vendor should be pushing patches every third day. And, on linux I'd consider chromium more mainstream than chrome - especially on Gentoo since we've decrufted it a bit. I LIKE the contribution of linux distros, and I don't really want to see a move towards the Windows world where I have 10 different auto-updaters running (or worse - no auto-update and I'm just stuck with manual checks). I also don't like every browser having its own copy of everything from libz to webkit to sqllite. Rich

Replies