Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

yvonney · 2010-03-26 03:59:31

Hi, Anyone know if this is possible.
I'd be OK with some kind of static build IF that could be an option, if all installs have to be-built-with, gconf.

I curently run open-office without any java at all and without installing it.
I just copied the big folder of open-office stuff and it runs with just what's in the folder I found for it from an earlier install.

Wonder if I can somehow enjoy using chromium 5 without specifically letting gconf loose on my system, and ideally orbit2 as well,
though not sure I dislike orbit2 as much as gconf.

I use firefox and uzbl so the only two things which chromium wants as additions are gconf and orbit2.
Don't think I can bring myself to install gconf.

thanks!

Last edited by yvonney (2010-03-26 04:12:35)

ammon · 2010-03-26 11:39:09

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issue … l?id=19707

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issue … l?id=13322

It is not going to happen soon...

Meyithi · 2010-03-26 13:58:19

yvonney wrote:

Hi, Anyone know if this is possible.
I'd be OK with some kind of static build IF that could be an option, if all installs have to be-built-with, gconf.
I curently run open-office without any java at all and without installing it.
I just copied the big folder of open-office stuff and it runs with just what's in the folder I found for it from an earlier install.
Wonder if I can somehow enjoy using chromium 5 without specifically letting gconf loose on my system, and ideally orbit2 as well,
though not sure I dislike orbit2 as much as gconf.
I use firefox and uzbl so the only two things which chromium wants as additions are gconf and orbit2.
Don't think I can bring myself to install gconf.
thanks!

I felt the same at first, but gstreamer, gconf, liboil and orbit usually end up on my system one way or another so I make allowances for it.

yvonney · 2010-03-26 18:23:00

right. I know exactly what you mean. my understanding, thanks to arch and me has grown as much as my system as shrunk so to speak. You'd know what I mean on getting more and more minimalist, no gnome-ish stuff etc. I didn't know many finer points about why I didn't like gconf and only think I read that it was some kind or 'registry' thing. ewwwww?

Anyways, I've not got gconf and a lot of other things on my system and that makes me think there's reason to hesitate. just woke up though want to write back right away. thanks!

Gullible Jones · 2010-03-27 03:41:07

It's not really a registry thing, it uses separate files for each app. XML files, but still. And it's for users only. It can't get corrupted wholesale and leave your system unbootable. I don't particularly like GConf but I wouldn't hesitate to put it on my system if something needed it.

Re this dependency stuff - I used to be annoyed by it, but now I can't really be bothered to get worked up, unless it's something really ridiculous (like Mandriva's having X depend on Firefox and webkit, or Debian having pcmanfm recommend GDM). Most Gnome stuff is pretty modular; gconf for instance isn't that big. I mean, the Gnome deps make Chromium bigger than say Seamonkey, but what matters to me is that it runs much lighter; if it installs a few extra megs of dependencies, I consider that more than a fair tradeoff for freeing up several dozen megs of RAM (at the very least).

nbvcxz · 2010-03-27 11:17:41

I also wanted to try Chrome without gconf so I found:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29218
Iron Chrome does not require gconf

yvonney · 2010-03-27 22:29:27

Sound like it's possible to build without gconf. Thanks for that!
I used iron for while then there was a bunch of chat on the forums here about the dowload being hosted on a free download type space which people didn't like and that a lot of the changes in iron had comments that made me re-consider chromium. That and googles very recent statements about changing the logging thing.

apologies for no link to forum post mentioned and generally not much completeness above. (or was it some sites discussing opinions/observations? sorry, me much busy::)

basically I won't be using iron and I do like the probability that chromium may be able to be built without gconf.

Last edited by yvonney (2010-03-28 03:45:29)

nbvcxz · 2010-04-28 10:13:56

Another way to use Chromium and other its clones without gconf is to install no-gconf from AUR (working with probably some other gconf depended apps)

Last edited by nbvcxz (2010-04-28 10:14:31)

yvonney · 2010-04-28 10:57:04

that's very interesting. Didin't know about anything like that. thanks.

sand_man · 2010-04-28 12:00:50

nbvcxz wrote:

I also wanted to try Chrome without gconf so I found:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29218
Iron Chrome does not require gconf

Yeah but they host their source on rapidshare
I don't know, I just don't trust it all that much.

I find it amusing how much people despise gconf because it slightly resembles MS's registry. What if gconf was just a text file in /etc/ ? They are just application settings. What's the big deal?

Last edited by sand_man (2010-04-28 12:04:57)

gaunt · 2010-04-29 01:09:29

sand_man wrote:

I find it amusing how much people despise gconf because it slightly resembles MS's registry. What if gconf was just a text file in /etc/ ? They are just application settings. What's the big deal?

Just speaking for myself, but here's what I loathe about gconf:

1) It uses XML. Can we please stop the

<key type="Gconfkey" nottype="anythingelse"><name of="key" ob="scure" path="/usr/bin:/bin/:.">
<start>width<stop>
</name>
<value type="int" width="32" size="16" copied="yes" copiedfrom="/$HOME/.gconf/apps/gedit/%gconf.xml" path="/bin:/usr/bin:.">
<start>254<stop>
</value></key>

? How about "width:254" or something like that, if only for readability?

2) It uses XML. I have to say this again, once for reading, once for writing. Editing XML by hand is a pain, and I pity anyone who has to do it.

3) The naming convention. Why is *every* single config file named %gconf.xml? The % is a pain, sometimes I have to escape it, and the folders are often deep enough that I lose place without setting my PS1 to be ridiculously long. Perhaps we could stop all the subdirectories, move everything up, and then name it the same name as the folder instead of putting it _inside_ the folder with a generic name.

I'm not going to complain about the concept of directory structuring. It's long, it's bloated, it fills my filesystem with tiny useless files that hold EMPTY data, regenerate themselves on the fly and occasionally whine at me, but I do think that in the long run it's better than a huge flat file. But not by much.

The real sin of gconf is that it is a SECOND place for apps to store data. If some gtk app starts acting up, I need to check .foorc (or .config/foo/), *and* gconf. I don't want to do that. Gedit, please. I have a nice directory in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME for you, do you want it? Oh, no, I guess you don't, I guess you'd rather throw some unknown part of configuration in a special folder without your name on it and leave me to guess based on what toolkit I think you use. Oh well.

That's what went wrong with the registry. It was just a huge empty space for applications to throw data into, and some of them stored data there, some other places, and in the end it became a mire of bad names (%gconf for everything) and confusing names (xml) and now people explore the registry with pick-axes, flashlights and radios.

Last edited by gaunt (2010-04-29 01:14:00)

Profjim · 2010-04-29 02:50:19

Well said.

nbvcxz · 2010-04-29 08:36:17

sand_man wrote:

I find it amusing how much people despise gconf because it slightly resembles MS's registry. What if gconf was just a text file in /etc/ ? They are just application settings. What's the big deal?

gconfd another daemon operating (using resources) at my computer. Is it KISS or another unnecessery thing that slows down the system?

yvonney · 2011-05-26 18:23:32

i was sure than attempting to install it a few weeks ago gconf and the rest were still dependencies.
so today i checked AUR for gconf-less etc. version
then searched a bit

http://phajdan-jr.blogspot.com/2010/11/ … onger.html

so then i tried pacman -S chromium

and huh? just chromium needed on my system which doesn't have gconf

so, installing now. don't think i missed something obvious.

wonder · 2011-05-26 18:26:09

i dropped gconf because it was silly. is only needed to read the configuration for buttons like maximize/minimize/close to ensure it matches with metacity configuration

fbcon · 2011-06-20 10:43:56

Use gyp flag use_gconf=0 when building chromium.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-26 03:59:31

Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#2 2010-03-26 11:39:09

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#3 2010-03-26 13:58:19

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#4 2010-03-26 18:23:00

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#5 2010-03-27 03:41:07

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#6 2010-03-27 11:17:41

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#7 2010-03-27 22:29:27

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#8 2010-04-28 10:13:56

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#9 2010-04-28 10:57:04

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#10 2010-04-28 12:00:50

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#11 2010-04-29 01:09:29

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#12 2010-04-29 02:50:19

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#13 2010-04-29 08:36:17

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#14 2011-05-26 18:23:32

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#15 2011-05-26 18:26:09

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

#16 2011-06-20 10:43:56

Re: Chromium WITHOUT '''gconf''' and orbit2 possible?

Board footer