-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 25/09/13 11:52 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 9/25/13 2:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." >> <phajdan...@gentoo.org>wrote: >>> Perfect. >> >> Seriously? "Perfect" because one person agrees with you? >> >> Sigh. > > Look at the API breaks and talk to v8 upstream - if you have a > better solution to actual bugs that people report against Gentoo, > I'm all for it. > > Note that I've spent and keep spending time on unbundling what's > possible from chromium. I'm not saying bundled is good or fine, but > in the current situation of v8 I honestly think trying to ship a > shared library offers us *no* advantages and actually creates > problems, mainly because v8 was not designed to be used as a shared > library and breaks API/ABI even before patch version bumps like > a.b.c.x -> a.b.c.y. >
It would at minimum make sense to have a chromium-bundled v8 and a system v8, if you're not doing that already. Mozilla's do that now; they won't work with a shared libmozjs (indeed, they embed it statically into libXul, which is also internal and package-specific). 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? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlJDCPYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCbEgD/ZLCT9XFwk2Ara+G0gRQTas7P Wp78He716eSWD9nuaA8BAJlvk7SgBgCpYMORMYhsC1UlhWRLUNYDBf6NlUPDw/3x =hKKg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
