On 1/19/21 7:28 PM, Javier via arch-general wrote:
Actually, why not keeping it maintained without the "Sync Feature"? Is it something most users make use of? I use pretty much Firefox for everything, but I need to keep Chromium given some corporate web pages that only work on Chrome/Chromium. So I believe it's good for Arch to keep Chromium, and not sure about the rationale on no supporting Chromium without Sync. I bet it's pretty useful without it. I've been keeping an eye on that thread, but in the end devs are the ones deciding.
The current maintainer of chromium no longer wishes to be the maintainer -- without this feature, he does not consider Chromium to be a competitive, useful software. Fair enough -- no one is ever by any means forced to maintain anything they don't want to.
The offer is therefore on the table for "any other arch packaging team member who is interested, is free to take over instead". But with the caveat that Evangelos is also suggesting "Google LLC sucks and their browser is unfriendly, do you really want to?"
tl;dr it will only get maintained if someone cares about the program enough to do so. It's not being banned as not-permitted.
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
