Persistent app-accessible root greatly regresses OS security and breaks the verified boot security model. We're definitely not going to increase the number of build variants from 40 to 80 in order to provide an insecure option which would take away from efforts to properly implement features instead of doing it via hacks using apps running commands as root. If you want it you can make your own builds with it instead of us doubling the number of builds and deltas we need to make. Most of the people doing it are modifying the official builds and resigning them. Anyone who can understand the consequences of app-accessible root is capable of doing that.
Hi strcat, we had this conversation often enough that I'm starting to recognise the username. It's the same every time: Graphene argues it's dangerous, tech-savvy users want it but aren't necessarily interested in the upkeep (even if they're technically capable of making such a build), plus missing security patches (part of the point of this OS, otherwise you can use Lineage or whatever), and Graphene is under no obligation to provide anything to anyone. Same arguments today as they were from the start except now maybe the security patches' embargo time makes it even more hostile to do custom builds by power users
"Every time someone makes the same unreasonable demand of you, you offer the same explanation of why their demand is unreasonable."
Read what I wrote, "demanding" was addressed (though with the word obligation, functionally the same here):
> and Graphene is under no obligation to provide anything to anyone.
And here I thought it felt repetitive between (sub) threads
You say you understand that they're under no obligation to do anything, you already knew their reasoning, yet you still wrote a comment [seemingly] complaining about it. Was there a different purpose to it?
Removing access of users to their device is not security. At least not when users do not want this.
Your choosing to frame it that way is, at best, fraught.