On 15/10/2018 19:19, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 12:29:15PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:17:21AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >>>> Major updates to chromium in stable have so far been contingent on it >>>> being a leaf package, where there is no chance for it to break >>>> anything else. Adding CEF as a reverse dependency would change that. >>>> >>>> This is more of a question for the release team, it would need their >>>> approval. >>> Agreed. >> Release team, for the short recap: Would it be acceptable to have chromium >> provide a chromium-source binary package, and then package CEF (Chromium >> Embedded Framework) Build-Depending on that package, and then have other >> packages depend on CEF? CEF aims to provide a stable API/ABI on top of >> Chromium for other software to use, but needs updating whenever Chromium >> releases a new major version. See #893448 for some more details. > > Ping :-) Release team, do you want to weigh in? If nothing else, perhaps we > could add a CEF package in unstable only (ie., with a testing blocker bug) > for the time being. > > FWIW, I've updated my CEF packages to CEF/Chromium 69; all that was required > was > to patch out installation of Swiftshader (since Debian's packages now disable > it).
I'm not sure we (RT) need to make any decision here. Adding a chromium-src for other packages to build against is not special in any way, we don't approve this for other packages. As for the security support concerns, that's up to the security team. Cheers, Emilio
