Archives
Archives
| From: | "Paweł Hajdan | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] does v8 shared library make sense with current upstream approach? | ||
| Date: | Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:35 | ||
| Message-Id: | 52430DBD.2010300@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] does v8 shared library make sense with current upstream approach? by Ian Stakenvicius |
||
| 1 | On 9/25/13 9:01 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 | > However, if it's possible to keep the rest of the tree using one |
| 3 | > system package of v8 (or very small subset), and just maintain |
| 4 | > that(those) via security backports, would that be viable? |
| 5 | |
| 6 | In the current state of v8, no. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | Latest security-supported v8 is defined as one used by stable chromium. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | Security backports are not supported by upstream, and are not always |
| 11 | even possible with a fast-changing codebase. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | A good test for this type of questions is look at some of the bugs below: |
| 14 | |
| 15 | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417879 |
| 16 | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420995 |
| 17 | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471582 |
| 18 | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477300 |
| 19 | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=484786 |
| 20 | |
| 21 | and try to post fixes for them. If you or anyone else can do that, I'm |
| 22 | happy to take them and change my opinion (note that I'd apply some |
| 23 | quality standards to the patches, not just look whether they happen to |
| 24 | work for now). |
| 25 | |
| 26 | I actually really hope to improve this in the long term (as said |
| 27 | before), and we can definitely revisit this in the future. For now I'd |
| 28 | like to address real problems that affect users. |
| 29 | |
| 30 | Paweł |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |