[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] does v8 shared library make sense with current upstream approach?
From:       "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2013-09-25 16:22:21
Message-ID: 52430DBD.2010300 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 9/25/13 9:01 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> However, if it's possible to keep the rest of the tree using one
> system package of v8 (or very small subset), and just maintain
> that(those) via security backports, would that be viable?

In the current state of v8, no.

Latest security-supported v8 is defined as one used by stable chromium.

Security backports are not supported by upstream, and are not always
even possible with a fast-changing codebase.

A good test for this type of questions is look at some of the bugs below:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417879
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420995
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471582
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477300
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=484786

and try to post fixes for them. If you or anyone else can do that, I'm
happy to take them and change my opinion (note that I'd apply some
quality standards to the patches, not just look whether they happen to
work for now).

I actually really hope to improve this in the long term (as said
before), and we can definitely revisit this in the future. For now I'd
like to address real problems that affect users.

Paweł


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]