| 1 |
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:06 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Can phantomjs be simply masked for a longer period until the |
| 4 |
> development |
| 5 |
> world has had an opportunity to catch up? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
What kind of timeframe do you propose? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> 1.5 Months from "We're not working on this" to "its dead jim, kill it |
| 10 |
> from orbit" |
| 11 |
> is a bit fast for anything entrenched. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The problems were there a lot longer so for me at least it still feels |
| 14 |
slow. The fact that Chromium is now an alternative finally made it |
| 15 |
easier to mask this, but really we should have masked this months ago. |
| 16 |
If not for security reasons than for all the QA violations such as tons |
| 17 |
of bundled code. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Chromium 59 is also, similarly, quite new. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It has hit stable upstream so we should see stable versions in Gentoo |
| 22 |
soon, I expect. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Hans |
Archives