| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with |
| 3 |
> out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations. Every single |
| 4 |
> stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is |
| 5 |
> a security stabilization. Chromium goes stable early and with the 'it's |
| 6 |
> a security-bug, small problems can be ingored'-hat on. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If it gets too out of hand we could always do the Debian thing and |
| 9 |
backport patches (but for a period of weeks to months, not moths to |
| 10 |
years). That obviously has problems of its own. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I get that if I want to be a btrfs pioneer I might have to live with |
| 13 |
doing daily git updates or whatever. What I don't get is that a |
| 14 |
mainstream vendor should be pushing patches every third day. And, on |
| 15 |
linux I'd consider chromium more mainstream than chrome - especially |
| 16 |
on Gentoo since we've decrufted it a bit. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I LIKE the contribution of linux distros, and I don't really want to |
| 19 |
see a move towards the Windows world where I have 10 different |
| 20 |
auto-updaters running (or worse - no auto-update and I'm just stuck |
| 21 |
with manual checks). I also don't like every browser having its own |
| 22 |
copy of everything from libz to webkit to sqllite. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives