What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

flamelab · 2009-09-04 00:33:22

They are too many !

1 bin32-cxchromium--> An old chromium package. Do we need it ?

2 chromium-browser-{buildnumber}~-svn{date}{upstreamrev} --> it's the repackaged deb of a rebuilt svn chromium. 32bit only.

3 chromium-browser-dev --> OK. it's the same as the previous one + 64bit package. So (2) isn't needed ?

4 chromium-browser-inspector --> Don't really know what this is.

5 chromium-continuous / fresh / lkgr --> Don't they provide the same package ? They drag the .zip from build.chromium.org. What if they provide different svn versions? In an experimental browser, don't expect much stability, so why should we have now three different stages of the svn history of chromium ?

6 chromium-snapshot --> same as chromium-continuous. 32bit only.

7 chromium-snapshot-64 --> it's the native 64bit package of chromium-snapshot. 64bit only.

8 chromium-snapshot-64-last --> Don't really know what this is. It seems the same as (7).

9 chromium-browser-svn -->The only one that provides the source for building.

Well, they are too many. Some of them provide the same thing, others should be merged.

What we should need:

One PKGBUILD to repackage the deb package from ppa launchpad for both architectures. Too difficult to create a PKGBUILD that will (with the aid of wget or curl or even elinks) automatically check the latest version possible.

One PKGBUILD to repackage the zip package from build.chromium.org. I have a suggestion for this.

One PKGBUILD to make an archlinux package from sources. It already exists, this should be the base for the future chrome (stable) package.

Not all of these.

Just a suggestion

Last edited by flamelab (2009-09-04 01:13:32)

drtoki · 2009-09-04 00:59:47

I second this. I don't see the point in having so many. I had no idea what the hell was going on when I went to AUR to install chromium. I ended up building from source the first time. When I felt it was time to update I found editing the pkgbuild and rebuilding was too much of a hassle for my interests. I ended up going with chromium-snapshot since it seemed to have the most votes. Whatever, works for me.

EDIT: When there are so many packages with basically the same content, better, more detailed descriptions would be extremely helpful.

Last edited by drtoki (2009-09-04 01:05:17)

jdhore · 2009-09-04 21:14:18

flamelab wrote:

5 chromium-continuous / fresh / lkgr --> Don't they provide the same package ? They drag the .zip from build.chromium.org. What if they provide different svn versions? In an experimental browser, don't expect much stability, so why should we have now three different stages of the svn history of chromium ?
6 chromium-snapshot --> same as chromium-continuous. 32bit only.

I can comment on these since i'm the chromium-snapshot maintainer.

1. chromium-snapshot is NOT 32-bit only. It works with multilib/lib32 stuff. I did not add support for the native 64-bit chrome-linux.zip builds because sometimes the build number will not match between 32-bit and 64-bit and that's not exactly happy.

2. chromium-continuous / fresh / lkgr are not updatable. You have to (for example) yaourt -S $name every time you want the new version rather than seeing it in (again, for example) yaourt -Syu --aur.

3. chromium-snapshot is very different from -continuous/fresh/lkgr. Those either pull the latest build which may have bugs (there could've been a massive revert after the build was made) or they pull the lkgr build which is usually somewhere between 50 and 400 revisions out of date (the price you pay for a high guarantee of stability i suppose).

Honestly, I like that there are 9 different Chrome/Chromium packages in AUR. It gives the users choice of what they want (if they want -snapshot, -lkgr, -continuous, the .debs from the chromium-daily Ubuntu PPA or building from source).

Quick EDIT: Perhaps have a Wiki page explaining what's different in each Chrome/Chromium package so it's even easier for people to choose.

Last edited by jdhore (2009-09-04 21:15:20)

flamelab · 2009-09-04 22:21:37

When I mean 32bit only, I mean that the binary in it is 32bit only, I don't mean the package

Well, I didn't say that it isn't good to have a choice, but if we are to have a Wiki page just to install a simple browser, it's too much, isn't it ?

jdhore · 2009-09-04 22:35:00

flamelab wrote:

When I mean 32bit only, I mean that the binary in it is 32bit only, I don't mean the package
Well, I didn't say that it isn't good to have a choice, but if we are to have a Wiki page just to install a simple browser, it's too much, isn't it ?

Well...Obe other thing...You can't forget the same case with firefox. How we have firefox in extra, firefox-branded, firefox-pgo, swiftfox, iceweasel, swiftweasel and a lot more...It's typical with any "large browser project".

flamelab · 2009-09-04 22:39:07

jdhore wrote:

flamelab wrote:
When I mean 32bit only, I mean that the binary in it is 32bit only, I don't mean the package
Well, I didn't say that it isn't good to have a choice, but if we are to have a Wiki page just to install a simple browser, it's too much, isn't it ?
Well...Obe other thing...You can't forget the same case with firefox. How we have firefox in extra, firefox-branded, firefox-pgo, swiftfox, iceweasel, swiftweasel and a lot more...It's typical with any "large browser project".

But these are actually different.

Firefox on extra and firefox-branded have different brandings (small difference)
firefox-pgo is a high performance build
swiftfox is an optimised build, unbranded
iceweasel is patched firefox, unbranded.
swiftsweasel is another patched firefox, unbranded.

The differences betweeen the chromium packages is their pre-packaged source (and for lkgr their age), not the performance or the branding.

I just don't really understand the meaning of "stability" for Chromium yet. I use chromium 64bit (repackaged zip from buildbot), I think we need some months for chromium to reach high stability, even though it is quite stable for now (and has most of the features that the Windows' build has)

Last edited by flamelab (2009-09-04 22:49:03)

rwd · 2009-09-05 21:42:41

I was puzzled too. A semi-stable binary version and a snapshot of the latest source would be enough for most people I assume.

Last edited by rwd (2009-09-29 19:59:10)

gabriel9 · 2009-09-16 11:32:24

Chromium browser inspector is for repackaged deb version, becouse Browser Inspecor is separated. It gives some features like firebug, but much more simpler. Bit it is useful for Web development.

Evanlec · 2009-09-19 05:40:32

I vote to atleast remove
chromium-snapshot-64-last

I personally use chromium-snapshot-64 package, and this other package confused me.

sollaa · 2009-09-26 22:44:55

I am confused too, and I don't know which package to use. I think the obvious interest in Chromium amongst Arch users would be best served by putting a "popular" package into [Community] and letting people with special needs maintain their AUR packages, like they are doing now. It would be nice if the AUR packages used the [Community] package as a "reference": to say "this package different from the [Community] package of Chromium in these ways: x y z".

Indeed, it makes sense to reuse the [Community] PKGBUILD as much as possible, but that's up the AUR maintainer.

@gabriel: Nice Behelit. I've got the Egg of the FOol myself. :^)

Last edited by sollaa (2009-09-26 22:45:49)

flamelab · 2009-09-26 22:59:18

@sollaa: The discussion about chromium packages has been moved to aur-general

Last edited by flamelab (2009-09-26 22:59:30)

bostonvaulter · 2009-09-29 09:52:40

Posting wiki link for Chromium Proposal

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Chromium_proposal

Dead Code · 2009-09-29 11:47:52

I agree from the wiki, there is no point building from the debs. Googlebot and SVN is the right way to follow

wonder · 2009-09-29 11:51:42

Dead Code wrote:

I agree from the wiki, there is no point building from the debs. Googlebot and SVN is the right way to follow

add your suggestion there, that is the purpose of that wiki, to centralize them

Dead Code · 2009-09-29 12:11:51

wonder wrote:

Dead Code wrote:
I agree from the wiki, there is no point building from the debs. Googlebot and SVN is the right way to follow
add your suggestion there, that is the purpose of that wiki, to centralize them

Done

algorythm · 2009-09-29 13:09:27

What happened with the chromium-continuous?

Last edited by algorythm (2009-09-29 13:09:44)

Stefan Husmann · 2009-09-29 16:16:39

Obviously it was deleted.

algorythm · 2009-09-29 18:34:26

Well... yeah but I was looking for a reason .

Edit: d'oh didn't read the answer before asking (mailing list)

Last edited by algorythm (2009-09-29 18:46:54)

keiichi · 2009-10-11 07:22:00

It's been a good while and the Chromium packages haven't made it into the main repo's and we still have a messy AUR, any news or updated info?

algorythm · 2009-11-27 15:03:36

keiichi wrote:

It's been a good while and the Chromium packages haven't made it into the main repo's and we still have a messy AUR, any news or updated info?

What do you mean? There's only 5 chromium packages and I think they are all required (with the exception of chromium-os-bin). But I didn't read _why_ exactly did they give up the 'freedom of choice' and lack of branding in order to jsut clear up the chromium packages in AUR. Imho some filter option on the site would've been a better compromise.

0. chrome-like-icons (18 votes), "icon theme which is like chromium web browser icons".

1. chromium-browser-bin (651), the "main" one.

2. chromium-browser-svn (35), for source builders.

3. chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree-bin (113), "non-free ffmpeg codecs for 'chromium-browser-bin'"

4. chromium-os-bin (1), "the chromium that is used as interface for ChromeOS"

5. iron (153), SRWare Iron

Last edited by algorythm (2009-11-27 15:06:41)

wonder · 2009-11-27 19:55:09

@algorythm that post is one month old. since then we cleaned chromium packages.

VII · 2010-06-23 12:40:05

As far as I'm concern, Chrome is the spy-ware browser...

But not a spy-ware for a specific type of users, but one for a major company like Google. Which means, you don't have to worry about Credit Card frauds or something like that... There's an old saying: "information is power" - Google being the biggest marketing corporation on the Internet has a very good use for this power. So, they won't harm users in any way, that would be against their "current" interests... They just want to gather data regarding users interests.

As you all know by now, at current times Internet is the best place for that:

-you want to buy something, you browse the Internet
-you're interested in some future gadgets, you browse the Internet
-you're looking for a specific product (from any domain) you browse the Internet
-you're looking for a specific place for a vacation, you browse the Internet.
... and so on.

Until Chrome was released, their search engine (Google) and their mail client (Gmail) was a very good tool for that, yet with Google Chrome they have even more control which obviously, can lead to more accurate results. This will increase their profits significantly, as mentioned above - without hurting those involved.

It's all up to you as user, if you agree with that or not... which is obviously coved by their EULA Yet, I strongly believe 99.9% of all Goggle Chrome users never looked at it (same as they proceed with any EULA).

========

I use Firefox for general usage, yet I also have Chromium installed for YouTube - since under Linux 64 bit flash doesn't work as wanted under Firefox, yet works pretty decent under Chromium. YouTube is also part of Google, so it makes no difference. And yes, I one of those rare people that don't accept their entire policy and also read EULA's.

Inxsible · 2010-06-23 14:33:46

VII wrote:

As far as I'm concern, Chrome is the spy-ware browser...
But not a spy-ware for a specific type of users, but one for a major company like Google. Which means, you don't have to worry about Credit Card frauds or something like that... There's an old saying: "information is power" - Google being the biggest marketing corporation on the Internet has a very good use for this power. So, they won't harm users in any way, that would be against their "current" interests... They just want to gather data regarding users interests.
As you all know by now, at current times Internet is the best place for that:
-you want to buy something, you browse the Internet
-you're interested in some future gadgets, you browse the Internet
-you're looking for a specific product (from any domain) you browse the Internet
-you're looking for a specific place for a vacation, you browse the Internet.
... and so on.
Until Chrome was released, their search engine (Google) and their mail client (Gmail) was a very good tool for that, yet with Google Chrome they have even more control which obviously, can lead to more accurate results. This will increase their profits significantly, as mentioned above - without hurting those involved.
It's all up to you as user, if you agree with that or not... which is obviously coved by their EULA Yet, I strongly believe 99.9% of all Goggle Chrome users never looked at it (same as they proceed with any EULA).
========
I use Firefox for general usage, yet I also have Chromium installed for YouTube - since under Linux 64 bit flash doesn't work as wanted under Firefox, yet works pretty decent under Chromium. YouTube is also part of Google, so it makes no difference. And yes, I one of those rare people that don't accept their entire policy and also read EULA's.

and how does your rant against Google add anything to this 7 month old thread which was created only to clarify the hassles about so many chromium packages in AUR

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-23 14:34:05)

Army · 2010-06-23 17:32:02

I recommend closing this thread! We have chromium in the Repos, compiled by Pierre or other devs, so this case is closed, end of story.

By the way, if there's a spyware out there based on chromium, it's iron!

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-04 00:33:22

What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#2 2009-09-04 00:59:47

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#3 2009-09-04 21:14:18

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#4 2009-09-04 22:21:37

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#5 2009-09-04 22:35:00

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#6 2009-09-04 22:39:07

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#7 2009-09-05 21:42:41

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#8 2009-09-16 11:32:24

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#9 2009-09-19 05:40:32

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#10 2009-09-26 22:44:55

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#11 2009-09-26 22:59:18

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#12 2009-09-29 09:52:40

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#13 2009-09-29 11:47:52

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#14 2009-09-29 11:51:42

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#15 2009-09-29 12:11:51

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#16 2009-09-29 13:09:27

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#17 2009-09-29 16:16:39

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#18 2009-09-29 18:34:26

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#19 2009-10-11 07:22:00

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#20 2009-11-27 15:03:36

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#21 2009-11-27 19:55:09

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#22 2010-06-23 12:40:05

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#23 2010-06-23 14:33:46

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

#24 2010-06-23 17:32:02

Re: What's going on with the Chromium browser packages ?

Board footer