1 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> For years we've been patching packages to work with >= our latest stable |
4 |
> version of ffmpeg/libav and unbundle it. Even mplayer. Chromium shouldnt |
5 |
> be any exception. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Patching consumer packages that way has some advantages: |
8 |
> - Maintainers do not need to wait for ffmpeg to be stabilized. |
9 |
|
10 |
Sure, but we're talking about a major version here, and a web browser |
11 |
where future security updates need to be deployed quickly. You don't |
12 |
want to be stuck figuring out what other ffmpeg API calls were touched |
13 |
in the new version while there is some exploit floating around. |
14 |
|
15 |
It seems like bundling is the simpler solution here, unless the |
16 |
necessary patches are trivial. If they're in fact trivial somebody |
17 |
can probably just post one and save a lot of speculation. :) |
18 |
|
19 |
Ultimately though I think it is up to the chromium team to decide |
20 |
whether they would rather bundle or patch. Then perhaps the rest of |
21 |
us get to decide whether we want chromium in the tree or not. They're |
22 |
volunteers, after all, we can't force them to create patches. I |
23 |
suspect for quite a few Gentoo would probably go before Chromium does. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Rich |