| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi guys, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> 1x rebuild for cups useflag |
| 8 |
>> 1x update |
| 9 |
>> 1x rebuild for cups useflag |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> <snip> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Chromium moves fast and you're obviously running unstable keywording. |
| 14 |
> Meaning you're *intentionally* getting every beta channel release. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Actually, even in the mozilla team, we try to reduce the no. of |
| 18 |
revbumps and USE-flag changes ebuilds get by batching them up. Even |
| 19 |
though Firefox (and earlier xulrunner) doesn't have the crazy release |
| 20 |
cycle of Chromium (yet), it simply helps to reduce irritation for |
| 21 |
users. We try the same with webkit-gtk/evolution/e-d-s under GNOME |
| 22 |
(although, they don't require many updates anyway). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Small things like these that cost little help in keeping users happy. |
| 25 |
It's a very easy development process change. I remember a blog post by |
| 26 |
the chromium team about this too, so they are aware of user |
| 27 |
complaints. scarabeus isn't the only one. :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Also, about attack vectors on beta builds of chromium, they're too |
| 30 |
fast-moving a target with a very low target population. Excessively |
| 31 |
unlikely that someone will release malware to attack a vulnerability |
| 32 |
in version 17.x.y.z. We don't need to go ape-shit over security of |
| 33 |
alpha/beta builds. Serious bugs, of course, should be fixed. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
OTOH, if you're seriously concerned about personalized attacks, you |
| 36 |
should be running adblock and noscript anyway. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives