Re: chromium not in Squeeze: a bit of communication needed?
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a
> > lot of this concern.
>
> Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the installer
> can do is eliminate one or two of the three or four things users must
> do to use it. All my comments about user discoverability/usability still
> apply.
>
> > > If backports are really officially supported, and we encourage users to
> > > install a web browser from them, which is not available in stable, how
> > > is that truely different than shipping the same web browser in stable?
> >
> > The difference is that there is no arduous backporting/dsa process to
> > push that update
>
> If we're encouraging users to install a web browser from an officially
> supported part of Debian, then the security support requirements are not
> lessened *at all*.
Arguably, it's easier to get newest releases of the software as security
support into testing and thus backports, than it is to get them in
stable.
Mike
Reply to: