[arch-general] On arch-dev-public: Chromium losing Sync support on March 15

u34＠net9.ga

20 Jan 2021 20 Jan '21

12:22 a.m.

There is a heads-up discussion at https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2021-January/030260.ht... . 1. Is it worth asking help from some free software org, since the problem is shared by other distributions? Perhaps google will agree to work with that org, as a representative of the distributions. Or,that a single distribtion will represent the other? 2. I hardly use chromium. Yet, few gov sites here mandate using it. At rare circumstancess, I have to deal with these gov sites. In short, I hardly knows, and don't care, about its Sync feature. 2.1 Can the package built, and run, without whatever is required for the Sync feature? 2.2 In case you will stop maintaining it and no one adopts it, can you upload it to the AUR, and disown it? -- u34

Show replies by date

Javier

20 Jan 20 Jan

12:28 a.m.

On 1/19/21 6:22 PM, u34--- via arch-general wrote:

...

There is a heads-up discussion at https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2021-January/030260.ht... .

1. Is it worth asking help from some free software org, since the problem is shared by other distributions? Perhaps google will agree to work with that org, as a representative of the distributions. Or,that a single distribtion will represent the other? 2. I hardly use chromium. Yet, few gov sites here mandate using it. At rare circumstancess, I have to deal with these gov sites. In short, I hardly knows, and don't care, about its Sync feature. 2.1 Can the package built, and run, without whatever is required for the Sync feature? 2.2 In case you will stop maintaining it and no one adopts it, can you upload it to the AUR, and disown it?

-- u34

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. Greetings ! -- Javier

Matt Compton

12:30 a.m.

I’m on the same page. Hardly use chromium, and when I do I most definitely don’t use sync. On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 19:28 Javier via arch-general < arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

...

On 1/19/21 6:22 PM, u34--- via arch-general wrote:

...
There is a heads-up discussion at https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2021-January/030260.ht... .

1. Is it worth asking help from some free software org, since the problem is shared by other distributions? Perhaps google will agree to work with that org, as a representative of the distributions. Or,that a single distribtion will represent the other? 2. I hardly use chromium. Yet, few gov sites here mandate using it. At rare circumstancess, I have to deal with these gov sites. In short, I hardly knows, and don't care, about its Sync feature. 2.1 Can the package built, and run, without whatever is required for the Sync feature? 2.2 In case you will stop maintaining it and no one adopts it, can you upload it to the AUR, and disown it?

-- u34

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.

Greetings !

-- Javier

Eli Schwartz

1:09 a.m.

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

Geo Kozey

4:02 p.m.

...

---------------------------------------- From: Eli Schwartz via arch-general Sent: Wed Jan 20 02:09:17 CET 2021 To: Cc: Eli Schwartz Subject: Re: [arch-general] On arch-dev-public: Chromium losing Sync support on March 15

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.

It would be easier to understand if maintainer explain this themselves. This is second time he stated plans about dropping chromium because upstream removed some api from public use. At first time those plans were aborted after users feedback which showed that removed api isn't crucial for using the app for them and this time it looks similar. It's ok to stop packaging something that maintainer doesn't like anymore even without waiting for excuse but stopping it only because lost feature that most users can deal without just fine is weird unless maintainer himself relied on it. Yours sincerely G. K.

Javier

6:15 p.m.

On 1/20/21 10:02 AM, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:

...

...
---------------------------------------- From: Eli Schwartz via arch-general Sent: Wed Jan 20 02:09:17 CET 2021 To: Cc: Eli Schwartz Subject: Re: [arch-general] On arch-dev-public: Chromium losing Sync support on March 15

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.

It would be easier to understand if maintainer explain this themselves. This is second time he stated plans about dropping chromium because upstream removed some api from public use. At first time those plans were aborted after users feedback which showed that removed api isn't crucial for using the app for them and this time it looks similar.

It's ok to stop packaging something that maintainer doesn't like anymore even without waiting for excuse but stopping it only because lost feature that most users can deal without just fine is weird unless maintainer himself relied on it.

Yours sincerely

G. K.

Totally agree with Eli, in that the devs are the ones deciding chromium fate in Arch. BTW, another dev has already mentioned he would adopt it, if dropped by its current maintainer, and keep it without sync if required. So, I guess it's a matter of time now, to see what'll happen. -- Javier

Mike Cloaked

7:12 p.m.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:15 PM Javier via arch-general < arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

...

...
...
---------------------------------------- From: Eli Schwartz via arch-general Sent: Wed Jan 20 02:09:17 CET 2021 To: Cc: Eli Schwartz Subject: Re: [arch-general] On arch-dev-public: Chromium losing Sync support on March 15

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.

It would be easier to understand if maintainer explain this themselves. This is second time he stated plans about dropping chromium because upstream removed some api from public use. At first time those plans were aborted after users feedback which showed that removed api isn't crucial for using the app for them and this time it looks similar.

It's ok to stop packaging something that maintainer doesn't like anymore even without waiting for excuse but stopping it only because lost feature

On 1/20/21 10:02 AM, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote: that most users can deal without just fine is weird unless maintainer himself relied on it.

If a chromium user, after the loss of the sync api, would like to transition their setup from one computer to another, such as when a new arch install has been done on a new computer, is there a mechanism to transfer the bookmarks and passwords from one machine to the other if sync is not available? Even now if you rsync the config directory then the browser does work as it did on the original machine - and getting passwords into the new browser on a different machine does not seem to be something that is easy unless a clean profile is started, and the old and new browser synced by logging in to the same account. Can someone say how that would be achieved when sync to the cloud is no longer available?

...

...
Yours sincerely

G. K.

Totally agree with Eli, in that the devs are the ones deciding chromium fate in Arch.

BTW, another dev has already mentioned he would adopt it, if dropped by its current maintainer, and keep it without sync if required. So, I guess it's a matter of time now, to see what'll happen.

-- Javier

-- mike c

Matt Compton

7:15 p.m.

Can’t speak for every aspect of config, like extensions, but I do know that chromium (and derivatives) can export bookmarks to standard HTML. On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 14:12 Mike Cloaked via arch-general < arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

...

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:15 PM Javier via arch-general < arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

...
On 1/20/21 10:02 AM, Geo Kozey via arch-general wrote:

...
...
---------------------------------------- From: Eli Schwartz via arch-general
...
...
Sent: Wed Jan 20 02:09:17 CET 2021 To: Cc: Eli Schwartz Subject: Re: [arch-general] On arch-dev-public: Chromium losing Sync support on March 15

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.

It would be easier to understand if maintainer explain this themselves. This is second time he stated plans about dropping chromium because upstream removed some api from public use. At first time those plans were aborted after users feedback which showed that removed api isn't crucial for using the app for them and this time it looks similar.

It's ok to stop packaging something that maintainer doesn't like anymore even without waiting for excuse but stopping it only because lost feature that most users can deal without just fine is weird unless maintainer himself relied on it.

If a chromium user, after the loss of the sync api, would like to transition their setup from one computer to another, such as when a new arch install has been done on a new computer, is there a mechanism to transfer the bookmarks and passwords from one machine to the other if sync is not available? Even now if you rsync the config directory then the browser does work as it did on the original machine - and getting passwords into the new browser on a different machine does not seem to be something that is easy unless a clean profile is started, and the old and new browser synced by logging in to the same account. Can someone say how that would be achieved when sync to the cloud is no longer available?

...
...
Yours sincerely

G. K.

Totally agree with Eli, in that the devs are the ones deciding chromium fate in Arch.

BTW, another dev has already mentioned he would adopt it, if dropped by its current maintainer, and keep it without sync if required. So, I guess it's a matter of time now, to see what'll happen.

-- Javier

-- mike c

Oon-Ee Ng

6:45 a.m.

...

On 1/19/21 6:22 PM, u34--- via arch-general wrote:

...
2. I hardly use chromium. Yet, few gov sites here mandate using it. At rare circumstancess, I have to deal with these gov sites. In short, I hardly knows, and don't care, about its Sync feature. 2.1 Can the package built, and run, without whatever is required for the Sync feature? 2.2 In case you will stop maintaining it and no one adopts it, can you upload it to the AUR, and disown it?

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.

Not entirely sure whether this is just the 'sync feature' or extends to disallowing logging in to google accounts in the browser itself. If it's

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:28 AM Javier via arch-general < arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: the latter then the browser becomes very much useless for work purposes (as a lot of those sites require my organisational Google account logged in).

mar77i＠protonmail.ch

12:50 a.m.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:22 AM, u34--- via arch-general wrote:

...

There is a heads-up discussion at https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2021-January/030260.ht... .

1. Is it worth asking help from some free software org, since the problem is shared by other distributions? Perhaps google will agree to work with that org, as a representative of the distributions. Or,that a single distribtion will represent the other?

2. I hardly use chromium. Yet, few gov sites here mandate using it. At rare circumstancess, I have to deal with these gov sites. In short, I hardly knows, and don't care, about its Sync feature. 2.1 Can the package built, and run, without whatever is required for the Sync feature? 2.2 In case you will stop maintaining it and no one adopts it, can you upload it to the AUR, and disown it?

-- u34

Not 100%, but reading the arch-dev-public mail, I kind of struggle to believe Evangelos was completely serious. He might have been fishing for people to whom this might be a deal-breaker. Last time I checked, we still largely do the vanilla upstream packages thing. If Chromium becomes more of the same "safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web", Arch should IMO provide that, too. I even think Chromium's target audience largely welcomes the change. To frame it properly: The Chromium project found a way to expose less user data to Google. Good riddance, Sync. cheers! mar77i Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Ben Oliver

7:02 a.m.

I am probably in the rare camp (on this ML anyway) that uses Chromium with sync, and needs it for work. I am fine with using full-fat Chrome for this purpose.

Ujjwal Sharma

7:19 a.m.

On 20/01/2021 12.32 pm, Ben Oliver via arch-general wrote:

...

I am probably in the rare camp (on this ML anyway) that uses Chromium with sync, and needs it for work.

I am fine with using full-fat Chrome for this purpose.

Yeah, I think most people who prefer to use Chromium over Chrome wouldn't mind losing sync (emphasis on "most"). If nobody picks Chromium up, can I volunteer to help out? While I am not a TU or member of the packaging team, me and my colleagues at Igalia are the second-largest contributors to the project [1] and have a lot of experience dealing with its many quirks. Cheers, Ujjwal [1]: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XTILGQgwOtJSoNWY-X3D7sAKlgP6X1oNUDHfrrVtvT... -- Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him) Compilers Hacker, Node.js Core Collaborator and Speaker

Ricardo Band

25 Jan 25 Jan

10:04 a.m.

On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 07:02 +0000, Ben Oliver via arch-general wrote:

...

I am probably in the rare camp (on this ML anyway) that uses Chromium with sync, and needs it for work.

Same here. Because I have a work and private google profile I use Chrome for work and Chromium for private. I had two chromiums with seperate profiles in the past but the setup gets complicated when I try to include my password manager (pass + browserpass) into both profiles, so I switched to seperate browsers.

...

I am fine with using full-fat Chrome for this purpose.

That would mean I need to go back to my twp profile solution. That sucks a bit. :/ Let's hope google doesn't change it. I would like keeping two browsers. -- greetings XG_

Giancarlo Razzolini

1:01 p.m.

Em janeiro 25, 2021 7:04 Ricardo Band via arch-general escreveu:

...

Let's hope google doesn't change it. I would like keeping two browsers.

The ship has sailed. Google won't back down from this decision. And we'd be on a legal limbo if we decide to ship chrome keys on our package. So, these features will stop working on Arch package on March 15th. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini

Marcus Hoffmann

1:11 p.m.

On 25.01.21 14:01, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote:

...

Em janeiro 25, 2021 7:04 Ricardo Band via arch-general escreveu:

...
Let's hope google doesn't change it. I would like keeping two browsers.

The ship has sailed. Google won't back down from this decision. And we'd be on a legal limbo if we decide to ship chrome keys on our package. So, these features will stop working on Arch package on March 15th.

As a user knowing about this you can provide your own (or well the Chrome ones which are public) API keys via an env var though. Someone in this thread mentioned how exactly this works.

...

Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini

Best, Marcus

Giancarlo Razzolini

1:49 p.m.

Em janeiro 25, 2021 10:11 Marcus Hoffmann via arch-general escreveu:

...

As a user knowing about this you can provide your own (or well the Chrome ones which are public) API keys via an env var though. Someone in this thread mentioned how exactly this works.

Well, it's quite easy to provide them via environment variables. The main problem I see is: we don't know if google will return stuff on their chrome api that could break chromium. So, users willing to risk using chrome keys should do so at their own risk, and this would be completely unsupported by Arch or any other distro in fact. I would probably switch to a different browser, If I depended on sync and the other affected API's. Btw, it looks like these API's are going to be affected, but I'm not sure if this list is accurate (google already said safe browsing doesn't need the sync api): Google account sync Geolocation Click to Call Chrome spelling API Contacts API Chrome translate element Safe browsing Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini

Anatol Pomozov

26 Jan 26 Jan

4:29 a.m.

Hi On the related topic. There is an interesting project that tries to remove Google-specific bits from the browser called ungoogled-chromium [1] and corresponding AUR package for it [2]. Taking the current situation into account and the future uncertainty wrt Google service integration would it make sense for Arch to move towards ungoogled-chromium solution? [1] https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ungoogled-chromium/

Eli Schwartz

4:35 a.m.

On 1/25/21 11:29 PM, Anatol Pomozov via arch-general wrote:

...

Hi

On the related topic.

There is an interesting project that tries to remove Google-specific bits from the browser called ungoogled-chromium [1] and corresponding AUR package for it [2].

Taking the current situation into account and the future uncertainty wrt Google service integration would it make sense for Arch to move towards ungoogled-chromium solution?

[1] https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ungoogled-chromium/

The scope of that project is very different, and I don't see any reason to slow down packaging new releases of chromium in order for a political fork to play catch-up. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

1185

Age (days ago)

1191

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

17 comments

14 participants

participants (14)

Anatol Pomozov
Ben Oliver
Eli Schwartz
Geo Kozey
Giancarlo Razzolini
Javier
mar77i＠protonmail.ch
Marcus Hoffmann
Matt Compton
Mike Cloaked
Oon-Ee Ng
Ricardo Band
u34＠net9.ga
Ujjwal Sharma