From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38433) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e2tpF-00045T-96 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:52:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e2tpC-00035D-5T for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:52:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e2tpC-00034x-1m for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:52:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e2tpB-0008Uv-Qr for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:52:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#28004] Chromium Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <87y3qvb15k.fsf@fastmail.com> <20171010131949.y43plpzxbppvrigr@abyayala> <87lgkha2cx.fsf@gnu.org> <20171012195628.GA31843@jasmine.lan> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:51:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20171012195628.GA31843@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:56:28 -0400") Message-ID: <87shensfq6.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 28004@debbugs.gnu.org Heya, Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:52:46PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> ng0 skribis: >> > could this patch be merged into master now? >>=20 >> Probably (I think at the time Marius submitted it the =E2=80=98ld=E2=80= =99 wrapper >> enhancements were not in =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99 yet.) >>=20 >> For the security aspect though, given that it=E2=80=99s a fairly critical >> component, I=E2=80=99d like to have Leo=E2=80=99s opinion. Thoughts? > > Any questions in particular? Not really, I was wondering about the Marius=E2=80=99 warning as to the difficulty of keeping it up-to-date. > For me, the primary question is maintenance. > > As Marius pointed out when sending the patch, major version upgrades may > be difficult, and timely delivery of security updates cannot be > guaranteed. But these caveats apply to every package. [0] They aren't a > reason to exclude Chromium from Guix. Right. A browser is particularly sensitive though. > Now, if we add the Chromium package and then let if fall behind for > weeks or months, that will be a problem, and we will need to remove it. > It's relatively easy to remove packages of end-user applications, since > it's rare that other packages depend on them. > > As always, I'm willing to help with security updates as much as my > volunteer schedule allows. > > The other issue will be bugs caused by the use of non-bundled libraries. > Presumably, important bugs are fixed in the bundled libraries before > they are released by the upstream library (if ever). But again, this is > an issue with all of our packages. We will address these issues when we > find them. Yeah. > There was a new release last month, 61.0.3163. I'd like to try updating > to it this weekend if I have the disk (does anyone know how much is > required) and computing power. Then we can push :) Sounds like a plan! > [0] Users who really need to rely on the security of Chromium or Chrome > should use the "official" installation from the Chromium or Google > teams, and turn on auto-updates. Every update can be expected to fix > critical bugs. I get your point, but OTOH getting binaries from Google is not something I feel like recommending. :-) I think we should make sure that our package does not call home in any way. That=E2=80=99s what I expect from a security- and privacy-conscious distro. WDYT? Thanks for your feedback! Ludo=E2=80=99.