"Staying close to upstream"

[Kevin Kofler]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We have the authority to do that, and the decision you're referring to
> effectively *did* override the maintainer by saying that the selinux
> policy change should be reverted. If a package is generally
> well-maintained and then broken by a change introduced by another
> maintainer, there has to be a very strong argument to do anything other
> than revert the change that broke things in the first place.

But the end effect is, we're allowing a web browser to disable memory 
protection, exposing all users to a severe security risk from merely 
browsing web sites. IMHO, the performance improvements in JavaScript aren't 
worth that risk. JavaScript JITs should be banned.

        Kevin Kofler