1 |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:43:08 +0200 |
2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> nobody is talking about a premature unmask and even less about |
5 |
> firefox :) |
6 |
|
7 |
Right. My bad on the FF :) ( ffmpeg having FF in it is clearly perturbing my brain ) |
8 |
|
9 |
But my point really is that *chromium* has end users desiring latest-and-greatest |
10 |
for valid security reasons. |
11 |
|
12 |
And the strategy of allowing temporary USE masking means the life-cycles of stabilization |
13 |
between Chromium and ffmpeg don't need to be tied together. |
14 |
|
15 |
That way we're not motivated to push stabilization of ffmpeg into end users systems |
16 |
in order to satisfy the security cycles of Chromium, so we can get Chromium stable |
17 |
and secure without necessitating we do the same with ffmpeg. |
18 |
|
19 |
And as stabilizing/unmasking ffmpeg relies mostly on the ability for its reverse |
20 |
dependencies not to be broken, this essentially means without the USE mask option, |
21 |
our stabliziation/unmasking workflow for Chromium is now dependent on everything |
22 |
that uses ffmpeg. |
23 |
|
24 |
And I'd just rather we not create such a tight, inflexible dependency that motivates |
25 |
us to propagate breakage when there's a clear path that doesn't propagate breakage. |