On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:43:08 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> nobody is talking about a premature unmask and even less about > firefox :) Right. My bad on the FF :) ( ffmpeg having FF in it is clearly perturbing my brain ) But my point really is that *chromium* has end users desiring latest-and-greatest for valid security reasons. And the strategy of allowing temporary USE masking means the life-cycles of stabilization between Chromium and ffmpeg don't need to be tied together. That way we're not motivated to push stabilization of ffmpeg into end users systems in order to satisfy the security cycles of Chromium, so we can get Chromium stable and secure without necessitating we do the same with ffmpeg. And as stabilizing/unmasking ffmpeg relies mostly on the ability for its reverse dependencies not to be broken, this essentially means without the USE mask option, our stabliziation/unmasking workflow for Chromium is now dependent on everything that uses ffmpeg. And I'd just rather we not create such a tight, inflexible dependency that motivates us to propagate breakage when there's a clear path that doesn't propagate breakage.
pgpG3HvChusMn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
