bug#26176: What to do about unmaintained frameworks like address@hidden in Guix?

[ng0]

Leo Famulari transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> We do a good job of deploying security updates to address@hidden
> Typically, we push the update within 24 hours.
> 
> However, several packages still depend on address@hidden, which is
> unmaintained upstream and surely contains many serious security
> vulnerabilities.
> 
> $ guix refresh -l address@hidden
> Building the following 6 packages would ensure 10 dependent packages are
> rebuilt: aria-maestosa-1.4.11 wxmaxima-16.04.2 filezilla-3.24.1
> elixir-1.3.2 kicad-4.0-1.4ee344e audacity-2.1.2
> 
> People who install these packages probably do not expect to install
> software containing publicly disclosed security vulnerabilities.
> 
> We should try to make these packages use a maintained version of
> webkitgtk.

Maybe those packages are already confirmed to work with 2.14, in some
commit in upstream software. If they aren't, and we can't make them
build with 2.14 in a functional way, it would serve a broad spectrum of
clients including Guix users to get in contact with the affected
package.

> If that's not possible, what should we do?
> 
> Here is a primer on the tangled world of webkit forks and versions:
> https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-security-updates/
> 
> It states that distros should not expect address@hidden to receive
> security updates:
> ------
> We could attempt to provide security backports to WebKitGTK+ 2.4. This
> would be very time consuming and therefore very expensive, so count this
> out.
> ------