[aur-general] chromium-beta and related mess
As the email suggests, I am JerichoKru, the same one that sparked Det's...interesting conversation that took place here. Though I'd rather let that die off and get to the actual issue. chromium-beta has been giving me issue after issue. Because of this, I have not uploaded it yet. 1.) I had figured that 6.0.496.0 would be the beta because it is the latest of the v6's and the v7's are the in dev tree. Det listed what is now the latest stable as the beta...which is obviously not right. 2.) This version apparently doesn't need/incompatible with the gyp patch listed. It stated that the patch was filled with "garbage". 3.) Skipping the patch causes a build error farther down in the compile process. Unfortunately, I forgot to save the output. I'll try again tomorrow as it is 11PM in my timezone. Any input for this would be helpful. As for clamav, it is updated and should work (it worked on my machine, anyway). On a somewhat related note: I had typed a rather long response to Det's...rant but, I tried to sent it with my other email and thus didn't get posted. When thinking about it, that reply would have just fed to the fire. ----- ...for some reason claws-mail can't send emails with hotmail...
On 9/24/10, Jericho Draken <jerichokru@hotmail.com> wrote:
As the email suggests, I am JerichoKru Hi!
1.) I had figured that 6.0.496.0 would be the beta because it is the latest of the v6's and the v7's are the in dev tree. Det listed what is now the latest stable as the beta...which is obviously not right. "Obviously wrong" :). Have a look: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/
2.) This version apparently doesn't need/incompatible with the gyp patch listed. It stated that the patch was filled with "garbage".
3.) Skipping the patch causes a build error farther down in the compile process. Unfortunately, I forgot to save the output. I'll try again tomorrow as it is 11PM in my timezone.
Any input for this would be helpful. Use the correct version, 6.0.472.63 and it builds fine.
On a somewhat related note: I had typed a rather long response to Det's...rant but, I tried to sent it with my other email and thus didn't get posted. When thinking about it, that reply would have just fed to the fire. Oh no, I love people disagreeing with me and comparing me to whatever funny stuff their mind comes up with.
Thanks for your time, Det
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:02:03 +0300 Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/24/10, Jericho Draken <jerichokru@hotmail.com> wrote:
As the email suggests, I am JerichoKru Hi!
1.) I had figured that 6.0.496.0 would be the beta because it is the latest of the v6's and the v7's are the in dev tree. Det listed what is now the latest stable as the beta...which is obviously not right. "Obviously wrong" :). Have a look: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/
Google's way of versioning things is weird...both the stable and beta are the same version? I'm so confused. Oh well, I'll update it with what link says.
On 9/24/10, JerichoKru <jerichokru@hotmail.com> wrote:
Google's way of versioning things is weird...both the stable and beta are the same version? I'm so confused.
Oh well, I'll update it with what link says.
There should be nothing to get/be confused about. Virtually with all software a stable version will sometimes go ahead the beta one, which in turn brings mixed opinions with certain packages in AUR between the maintainer and others whether the package should be updated or not. It's happened a few times when the maintainer has claimed that his package should only follow beta releases - which is not correct unless specifically mentioned in the pkgdesc or the pkgname. Well anyways, the dev(/canary) channel(s) will always be newer than beta/stable channels. Also, no need to cover you being wrong by saying you are confused or anything. Thanks for your time, Det
Seriously. Can we just get this issue resolved and stop being at one another's throats? It seems like all you do is reply to instigate something. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, no need to cover you being wrong by saying you are confused or anything.
On 9/25/10, member kittykatt <kittykatt@archlinux.us> wrote:
Seriously. Can we just get this issue resolved and stop being at one another's throats? It seems like all you do is reply to instigate something. I agree with you but this build issue doesn't exist with the correct upstream version (to which chromium-beta has already been updated to).
(Also please reply _under_ the quoted text. That's just some standard people here do.) Thanks for your time, Det
participants (4)
-
Det
-
Jericho Draken
-
JerichoKru
-
member kittykatt