Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR.
As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
Except for 15 and 6 which provide a different package, and 14 which is very old, all the others are differently packaged chromium from svn.
Chromium in these packages comes from two sources:
1)build.chromium.org 2)a deb from ppa.launchpad
So I make the same question: do we really need all these packages ? Shouldn't they be less and provide, from fewer PKGBUILDs, the different pre-packaged chromium browser ? Because they are mostly repackaging an already packaged chromium browser, except for (6).
We have two chromium-browser that use a deb package --> shouldn't it be one ? We have chromium-browser-dev --> it is the same as 1 and 2, but it can repackage debs for both architectures. 5 is a l10n package, it is only for the repackaged debs.
We have 4 chromium-snapshot PKGBUILDs (they provide the one from build.chromium.org ). Shouldn't there be only one, which will create a 32 or 64 package from one PKGBUILD ? Just like chromium-browser-dev (which repackages the deb one) and automatically ?
As you can see, it is clearly a bit of a chaos here.
Panos wrote:
Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR.
As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
Biru Ionut wrote:
Panos wrote:
Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR. As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
and to be clear enough, with the maintainer of 8,9 i've discussed in the past about those packages, deleted one or two times one of them, but he argue with me about the importance of them. some time he didn't upload anything but surprise, he did it again.
On Friday 25 September 2009 22:07:46 Biru Ionut wrote:
Biru Ionut wrote:
Panos wrote:
Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR. As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
and to be clear enough, with the maintainer of 8,9 i've discussed in the past about those packages, deleted one or two times one of them, but he argue with me about the importance of them. some time he didn't upload anything but surprise, he did it again.
I agree with you. Those two are supposed to provide differently "matured" chromium, I suppose marked as "stable, testing, unstable" by Google or so.
I really can't understand if they are both needed, since the meaning of "stability" in svn, and especially on a browser that is still experimental (but with satisfactory stability), is relative.
----------
For the chromium-snapshot one's, i'd propose to keep only the one that is autodownloaded (I guess it's no.13). But, it downloads only the 32bit package. No.12 does the same, but for the 64bit package.
:-/
Personally, I have found 11 (chromium-snapshot-64) to be perfect, with a couple of glitches when upgrading. For 64 bit users, it seems to be the best. However, I can't see the point in chromium-snapshot-64.
2009/9/25 Panos Filip panosfilip@gmail.com:
On Friday 25 September 2009 22:07:46 Biru Ionut wrote:
Biru Ionut wrote:
Panos wrote:
Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR. As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
and to be clear enough, with the maintainer of 8,9 i've discussed in the past about those packages, deleted one or two times one of them, but he argue with me about the importance of them. some time he didn't upload anything but surprise, he did it again.
I agree with you. Those two are supposed to provide differently "matured" chromium, I suppose marked as "stable, testing, unstable" by Google or so.
I really can't understand if they are both needed, since the meaning of "stability" in svn, and especially on a browser that is still experimental (but with satisfactory stability), is relative.
For the chromium-snapshot one's, i'd propose to keep only the one that is autodownloaded (I guess it's no.13). But, it downloads only the 32bit package. No.12 does the same, but for the 64bit package.
:-/
-- Panos Filip
On Friday 25 September 2009 22:24:29 Laurie Clark-Michalek wrote: Personally, I have found 11 (chromium-snapshot-64) to be perfect, with a couple of glitches when upgrading. For 64 bit users, it seems to be the best. However, I can't see the point in chromium-snapshot-64.
But it's 64bit only. The ideal (which is doable) is to have one PKGBUILD that will repackage both 32 and 64bit zips from build.chromium.org.
One PKGBUILD on [extra] that does what would be ideal for chromium-snapshot is flashplugin. If you try to build it, if you are on 32bit machine ($CARCH --> x86) it will build 32bit flashplugin, if you are on 64bit machine ($CARCH --> x86_64) it will build the 64bit one.
A rethink has been needed for quite a while. I guess I will restate my opinion once more.
Comment by: RandyPenguin <account.php?Action=AccountInfo&ID=13395> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:37:32 +0000
The only package on that list that existed when I put mine up was chromium-snapshot. The way I see it they are all snapshots and going by that scheme would not transmit the idea I was aiming at. The first one I put up was 'chromium-continuous' a descriptor I selected because it was pulled from the all green continuous directory. I then put up the one in question and gave it a descriptor that relayed the fact that it pulls the absolute latest build. I then created the late great (and quite problematic) lkgr. That build (for a time) was the most stable of the unstable builds one could select until the last change they made to the selection criteria. I do not understand duplicating effort for the sake of a schematic descriptor, to each his own I guess. Though, going that route I think there should be more of a clarification, or distinguishing factor should I say, between the versions that grab a specified checksummed build, the selection of which by other maintainers prompted me to add my own (Chromium has come far enough for me to trust it, when I didn't I ran continuous) and those that don't. By the by I am still waiting for the project to follow through on my request to add md5s to the build directories. More encouragement by the community would be helpful, here is a link:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=19336
If consolidated communication between the various maintainers produces a consensus for an amenable course of action please let me know. I'll be happy to make any changes necessary.
^_^
Comment by: DeeCodeUh <account.php?Action=AccountInfo&ID=6355> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:43:39 +0000
I understood your point, but I just like my package name better.. Would you like me to disown my package so you can adopt it? Because I really do like my name, and think it's more descriptive. There are already 3 other packages that correspond with my name scheme and I thought I'd complete it.
chromium-snapshot-64 chromium-snapshot-64-last chromium-snapshot And then my package: chromium-snapshot-latest
and to be clear enough, with the maintainer of 8,9 i've discussed in the
past about those packages, deleted one or two times one of > them, but he argue with me about the importance of them. some time he didn't upload anything but surprise, he did it again.
Why are you misrepresenting the situation?
"to be clear enough"
No I don't think you are.
"deleted one or two times one of them"
Not correct, the only one I asked to be deleted was lkgr.
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
-- Ionut
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
Panos Filip wrote:
is the second time today when i deleted 2). i've sent him both times emails but i think he just don't reads them. i believe that, like others, he just uploaded a new packages, just because 1) is out of date.
-- Ionut
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
Isn't this why we have hundreds of distros! :P
On 09/26/2009 01:48 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
i've seen it. waiting for a reply. i propose something that i think will make all those builds deprecated. lets make a repo(personal, archlinuxfr?) where we can add archlinux packages for chromium. a new version should be built on 3 days interval or more.
On 09/26/2009 01:48 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
another one. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30463
do you understand what bdheeman want to do? he uploaded and then he orphaned the first package and now i don't understand the purpose of the second package. maybe i'm stupid and i don't understand anything regarding chromium*.
On Sat 26 Sep 2009 17:03 +0300, Biru Ionut wrote:
On 09/26/2009 01:48 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
another one. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30463
do you understand what bdheeman want to do? he uploaded and then he orphaned the first package and now i don't understand the purpose of the second package. maybe i'm stupid and i don't understand anything regarding chromium*.
You can give him warning, then suspend his account if he persists. Hmm, it's too easy to make new accounts though.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Biru Ionut biru.ionut@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/26/2009 01:48 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
Yeeeah, we have a new chromium PKGBUILD...
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30458
Each time somebody finds a way to improve the PKGBUILDs, instead of proposing the new PKGBUILD to another contributor, he uploads it on AUR...!
another one. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30463
do you understand what bdheeman want to do? he uploaded and then he orphaned the first package and now i don't understand the purpose of the second package. maybe i'm stupid and i don't understand anything regarding chromium*.
-- Ionut
Oh my, why do they keep doing this ... -_-
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
On 09/26/2009 05:49 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
lets clean it :D.
i will let only one build from ubuntu ppa and only one build from google bot.
I vote for chromium-browser-dev (ppa) and chromium-snapshot(google bot) and chromium-browser-svn which is the only one that is building from source.
If chromium-browser-dev and chromium-snapshot doesn't have proper PKGBUILD for building native 64/32 we should ask the maintainer do that well and if he doesn't do that in couples of days, i will orphan it
what do you think about this?
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Biru Ionut biru.ionut@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/26/2009 05:49 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
lets clean it :D.
i will let only one build from ubuntu ppa and only one build from google bot.
I vote for chromium-browser-dev (ppa) and chromium-snapshot(google bot) and chromium-browser-svn which is the only one that is building from source.
If chromium-browser-dev and chromium-snapshot doesn't have proper PKGBUILD for building native 64/32 we should ask the maintainer do that well and if he doesn't do that in couples of days, i will orphan it
what do you think about this?
-- Ionut
Good idea. Three PKGBUILDs only then.
The one is ready (chromium-browser-svn), so we don't have to take care about it, it's OK.
The other two now: they must be autodownloading (like svn/git/cvs) the zip(googlebot) or deb (ppa) and 32 or 64bit according to system's $CARCH variable.
For the first one (googlebot), I already have a PKGBUILD ready for suggestion. If the wikipage is going to be created, i'll post it. For the second one (ppa), it's more difficult because, as I 've tried, wget/curl/elinks (used in order to download the html code and parse it in order to find the latest package), need a lot of commands to clear the html code. And the names used by ppa are also huge.
Panos Filip schrieb:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Biru Ionut biru.ionut@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/26/2009 05:49 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
lets clean it :D.
i will let only one build from ubuntu ppa and only one build from google bot.
I vote for chromium-browser-dev (ppa) and chromium-snapshot(google bot) and chromium-browser-svn which is the only one that is building from source.
If chromium-browser-dev and chromium-snapshot doesn't have proper PKGBUILD for building native 64/32 we should ask the maintainer do that well and if he doesn't do that in couples of days, i will orphan it
what do you think about this?
-- Ionut
Good idea. Three PKGBUILDs only then.
The one is ready (chromium-browser-svn), so we don't have to take care about it, it's OK.
The other two now: they must be autodownloading (like svn/git/cvs) the zip(googlebot) or deb (ppa) and 32 or 64bit according to system's $CARCH variable.
For the first one (googlebot), I already have a PKGBUILD ready for suggestion. If the wikipage is going to be created, i'll post it. For the second one (ppa), it's more difficult because, as I 've tried, wget/curl/elinks (used in order to download the html code and parse it in order to find the latest package), need a lot of commands to clear the html code. And the names used by ppa are also huge.
Hello,
I do not know (and honestly, do not even care) of all the differences that might be between teh versions, but do we really need the ubuntu version (ppa)? In other cases, we probably have a package build from sources and at most _one_ other release from upstream. And additionally the really free one: iron. Let's delete all the others.
Regards Stefan
With all these sharp minds we'll have a really slick set of packages soon I think. Please remove all of 'my' chromiums --> chromium-continuous , chromium-fresh , chromium-latest
Back to the studio! Cya Later!
--we see always what we expect to see, when what we expect to see assumes an unexpected shape, it disappears--
On 26.09.2009 18:24, Stefan Husmann wrote:
Panos Filip schrieb:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Biru Ionut biru.ionut@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/26/2009 05:49 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
lets clean it :D.
i will let only one build from ubuntu ppa and only one build from google bot.
I vote for chromium-browser-dev (ppa) and chromium-snapshot(google bot) and chromium-browser-svn which is the only one that is building from source.
If chromium-browser-dev and chromium-snapshot doesn't have proper PKGBUILD for building native 64/32 we should ask the maintainer do that well and if he doesn't do that in couples of days, i will orphan it
what do you think about this?
-- Ionut
Good idea. Three PKGBUILDs only then.
The one is ready (chromium-browser-svn), so we don't have to take care about it, it's OK.
The other two now: they must be autodownloading (like svn/git/cvs) the zip(googlebot) or deb (ppa) and 32 or 64bit according to system's $CARCH variable.
For the first one (googlebot), I already have a PKGBUILD ready for suggestion. If the wikipage is going to be created, i'll post it. For the second one (ppa), it's more difficult because, as I 've tried, wget/curl/elinks (used in order to download the html code and parse it in order to find the latest package), need a lot of commands to clear the html code. And the names used by ppa are also huge.
Hello,
I do not know (and honestly, do not even care) of all the differences that might be between teh versions, but do we really need the ubuntu version (ppa)? In other cases, we probably have a package build from sources and at most _one_ other release from upstream. And additionally the really free one: iron. Let's delete all the others. Regards Stefan
I concur about the PPA based packages but do not delete the chromium-browser-svn package, it is a source build!
i don't know how much time is needed to compile chromium. but i guess at least 1 or 2 hours ?? so i am not willing to take that much time to compile chromium every time. so using a binary package is not a bad idea for me
On 26.09.2009 18:49, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
i don't know how much time is needed to compile chromium. but i guess at least 1 or 2 hours ?? so i am not willing to take that much time to compile chromium every time. so using a binary package is not a bad idea for me
The idea is to decide on a chromium package which will eventually be used in [community] so that you don't have to compile it. Obviously, a PPA based package is not a good choice here.
Le samedi 26 septembre 2009 à 19:13 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase a écrit :
The idea is to decide on a chromium package which will eventually be used in [community] so that you don't have to compile it. Obviously, a PPA based package is not a good choice here.
i agree. but this will not happen any time soon.
so in the mean time, i was under the impression that 3 (or 4 or 2) packages of chromium could be provided. that's what i understood from previous emails. 3 is already better than 16...
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase sh@lutzhaase.comwrote:
On 26.09.2009 18:49, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
i don't know how much time is needed to compile chromium. but i guess at least 1 or 2 hours ?? so i am not willing to take that much time to compile chromium every time. so using a binary package is not a bad idea for me
The idea is to decide on a chromium package which will eventually be used in [community] so that you don't have to compile it. Obviously, a PPA based package is not a good choice here.
The svn/cvs/git etc packages rarely pass to [community] or even [extra]. Only when an official (buildable from source) Chrome browser or a stabilised snapshot of Chromium are announced, they shall pass to [community] or [extra]
The **best** PKGBUILD for Chromium is possibly the one that actually builds it. The same thing for the other browsers (for example, Firefox).
The others exist because building Chromium takes too long, even on an powerful machine.
---------
Someone told about the deb ones.
Actual differences between the ppa deb and zip from googlebot ? None. They are both built from svn. The deb one has minor quality than the zip because it is built with libjpeg6, and the zipped one with libjpeg7. Arch has libjpeg7, so you don't need to install libjpeg6 from AUR.
Stefan Husmann wrote:
Hello,
I do not know (and honestly, do not even care) of all the differences that might be between teh versions, but do we really need the ubuntu version (ppa)? In other cases, we probably have a package build from sources and at most _one_ other release from upstream. And additionally the really free one: iron. Let's delete all the others. Regards Stefan
Id suggest to keep iron as it's more of a fork of chromium than the others.
When shall we get an official version maintained by archlinux developers or TUs? In this way we can end up this chaos.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Scott Smith jcdenton513@gmail.com wrote:
Stefan Husmann wrote:
Hello,
I do not know (and honestly, do not even care) of all the differences that might be between teh versions, but do we really need the ubuntu version (ppa)? In other cases, we probably have a package build from sources and at most _one_ other release from upstream. And additionally the really free one: iron. Let's delete all the others. Regards Stefan
Id suggest to keep iron as it's more of a fork of chromium than the others.
Hamo schrieb:
When shall we get an official version maintained by archlinux developers or TUs? In this way we can end up this chaos.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Scott Smith jcdenton513@gmail.com wrote:
I was just building chromium-browser-svn. It pulls 900 Mb sources and took hours to build.
The build worked but the result was quite disappointing. The browser does not render asiatic fonts correctly, is not faster than any other browser and pulls some weird dependencies (ttf-ms-fonts).
I do not think this product is mature enough to hit the repos yet, and I do not see anyone who wants to do that.
Regards Stefan
WTF? A full-blown invisible KDE in a browser?!
:lol:
I thought i'd throw my hat into the ring here since I maintain a (and arguably the most popular) Chromium package. I personally think they should stay how they are. Perhaps clean up some of the packages that are horribly out-of-date (Perhaps any package not updated in the month of September or any package still on version 4.0.1xx.x or older).
Linux and ArchLinux is all about choice and i think interfering this much with the AUR clouds that a bit. As i said previously, my full suggestion is to leave it how it is (cleanup old packages) and perhaps create a Chromium or Chrome page on the wiki listing a few of the recommended packages like:
* chromium-snapshot - Recommended build from the Google Chromium buildbot for 32-bit. * chromium-snapshot-64 - See above, but for native 64-bit. * chromium-browser-dev - Building from source. *WARNING* downloads 900MB of sources and takes a long time to build. * chromium-continuous - Will always be up-to-date when you manually reinstall/rebuild/update the package. Also uses the Google Chrome buildbot. * google-chrome - Official dev channel package of Chrome from Google. * iron - Package of Chrome from dev channel with all the "data-mining" features removed. * chromium-browser - builds built of Chromium SVN by Ubuntu's chromium-daily PPA.
Yes, i know "If it requires a wiki article to choose a package, it's probably too complicated", but...
Also, the reason i haven't made my chromium-snapshot package use the 64-bit native builds is because i believe there are and will be times where i want to update the package and can't because the 32-bit and 64-bit buildbot builds don't match up (because the i386/i686 builds take a bit longer/shorter than the 64-bit builds or because there's a FTBFS on 64-bit, but not on 32-bit and so on).
- chromium-browser-dev - Building from source. *WARNING* downloads 900MB of
sources and takes a long time to build.
Really? I thought that was chromium-browser-svn? Got anything to say about the actual chromium-browser-dev?
...
Also, the reason i haven't made my chromium-snapshot package use the 64-bit native builds is because i believe there are and will be times where i want to update the package and can't because the 32-bit and 64-bit buildbot builds don't match up (because the i386/i686 builds take a bit longer/shorter than the 64-bit builds or because there's a FTBFS on 64-bit, but not on 32-bit and so on).
So you are going to justify your complacency because of a presupposition. I quality maintainer would at least look into it as that is what the community is asking for. All you do is update the md5sums? I'm sure you have the time and skill.
Just testing if I can reply to the previous message which actually showed up in my inbox (and see the reply itself).
Sorry for the noise
Just testing if I can reply to the previous message which actually showed up in my inbox (and see the reply itself).
Sorry for the noise
Well, this works again. I have no idea why, but at this point I don't even care.
Ok, i'm happy again. Sorry for all the test messages.
OK, I think we are gonna see new packages coming.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/
Guess what ... :p
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Panos Filip panosfilip@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I think we are gonna see new packages coming.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/
Guess what ... :p
OK, as I knew, we are gonna have new packages again:
1) chromiumos-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32290 2) chromium-os-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32118
The first one .... hmm... is a copy of a PKGBUILD I uploaded on bbs.archlinux.org based on chromium-browser-bin. The user didn't seem to be interested on uploading the sources (chromium-browser.desktop chromium-browser.png chromium-browser.sh LICENSE.txt) as well, and renamed accordingly.
The second one is more proper, but has to be renamed.
That means: we "need"* the (2) but with the (1)'s name.
*We don't really need the chromium-os chromium interface as standalone packages, only the standalone browser.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Panos Filip panosfilip@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Panos Filip panosfilip@gmail.comwrote:
OK, I think we are gonna see new packages coming.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/
Guess what ... :p
OK, as I knew, we are gonna have new packages again:
- chromiumos-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32290
- chromium-os-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32118
The first one .... hmm... is a copy of a PKGBUILD I uploaded on bbs.archlinux.org based on chromium-browser-bin. The user didn't seem to be interested on uploading the sources (chromium-browser.desktop chromium-browser.png chromium-browser.sh LICENSE.txt) as well, and renamed accordingly.
The second one is more proper, but has to be renamed.
That means: we "need"* the (2) but with the (1)'s name.
*We don't really need the chromium-os chromium interface as standalone packages, only the standalone browser.
And a duplicate of (2)
3) chromium-os-browser-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32291
On 11/28/2009 05:47 AM, Panos Filip wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Panos Filippanosfilip@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Panos Filippanosfilip@gmail.comwrote:
OK, I think we are gonna see new packages coming.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/
Guess what ... :p
OK, as I knew, we are gonna have new packages again:
- chromiumos-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32290
- chromium-os-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32118
The first one .... hmm... is a copy of a PKGBUILD I uploaded on bbs.archlinux.org based on chromium-browser-bin. The user didn't seem to be interested on uploading the sources (chromium-browser.desktop chromium-browser.png chromium-browser.sh LICENSE.txt) as well, and renamed accordingly.
The second one is more proper, but has to be renamed.
That means: we "need"* the (2) but with the (1)'s name.
*We don't really need the chromium-os chromium interface as standalone packages, only the standalone browser.
And a duplicate of (2)
- chromium-os-browser-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32291
deleted 1) and 3)
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Ionut Biru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 11/28/2009 05:47 AM, Panos Filip wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Panos Filippanosfilip@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Panos Filip<panosfilip@gmail.com
wrote:
OK, I think we are gonna see new packages coming.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux-chromeos/
Guess what ... :p
OK, as I knew, we are gonna have new packages again:
- chromiumos-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32290
- chromium-os-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32118
The first one .... hmm... is a copy of a PKGBUILD I uploaded on bbs.archlinux.org based on chromium-browser-bin. The user didn't seem to be interested on uploading the sources (chromium-browser.desktop chromium-browser.png chromium-browser.sh LICENSE.txt) as well, and renamed accordingly.
The second one is more proper, but has to be renamed.
That means: we "need"* the (2) but with the (1)'s name.
*We don't really need the chromium-os chromium interface as standalone packages, only the standalone browser.
And a duplicate of (2)
- chromium-os-browser-bin http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32291
deleted 1) and 3)
Does chromium-os-bin work for you ? Is it really necessary to keep at least one on AUR ?
On 11/28/2009 06:21 AM, Panos Filip wrote: <snip>
Does chromium-os-bin work for you ? Is it really necessary to keep at least one on AUR ?
to be fair i didn't had the curiosity to try it and still don't have. but if you say that is not working then i told see any point to have it.
in my opinion such build doesn't have to be in AUR. better to discuss this on forum.
2009/11/28 Ionut Biru ibiru@archlinux.org
On 11/28/2009 06:21 AM, Panos Filip wrote:
<snip>
Does chromium-os-bin work for you ? Is it really necessary to keep at
least one on AUR ?
to be fair i didn't had the curiosity to try it and still don't have. but if you say that is not working then i told see any point to have it.
in my opinion such build doesn't have to be in AUR. better to discuss this on forum.
The vmdk is already available from a multitude of sites; users can just download and use it with eg. VBox. I don't see what these packages do other than just creating another chromium browser with extra functionality when it's supposed to be an "OS".
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Ionut Biru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 11/28/2009 06:21 AM, Panos Filip wrote:
<snip>
Does chromium-os-bin work for you ? Is it really necessary to keep at
least one on AUR ?
to be fair i didn't had the curiosity to try it and still don't have. but if you say that is not working then i told see any point to have it.
in my opinion such build doesn't have to be in AUR. better to discuss this on forum.
IMO, we don't need this package. The binary's main purpose on the googlebot is to demonstrate the Chrome interface on ChromeOS and in order to use when you build a ChromeOS build (if you read the instructions, there is a step where the this binary has to be downloaded)
Now, as it is, chromium-os-bin, provides a Chromium build with some more features like clock, network settings, that apply on ChromeOS. It is not ChromeOS/ChromiumOS itself
And the story goes on. Google released a beta version of Chrome, and we already have two new ones
1. google-chrome-beta http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32530 2. google-chrome http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32531
Do we need them ?
On 12/08/2009 09:51 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
And the story goes on. Google released a beta version of Chrome, and we already have two new ones
- google-chrome-beta http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32530
- google-chrome http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32531
Do we need them ?
delete 2
google-chrome-beta i think we can have it because google has 3 channels. stable, beta and dev. but it should follow only the beta as google-chrome-dev should follow only dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 14:53, Ionut Biru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
but it should follow only the beta as google-chrome-dev should follow only dev
I'm not sure if I'm getting your meaning right, but I think that if a new beta release arrives, and it is a version later than the current dev release, -dev should be updated... same for - -beta updating to the latest stable if there's not a newer beta.
Users shouldn't have to switch packages to get a newer release if they use -beta or -dev IMO :)
-- Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
On 12/08/2009 10:46 PM, Ranguvar wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 14:53, Ionut Biruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
but it should follow only the beta as google-chrome-dev should follow only dev
I'm not sure if I'm getting your meaning right, but I think that if a new beta release arrives, and it is a version later than the current dev release, -dev should be updated... same for
- -beta updating to the latest stable if there's not a newer beta.
Users shouldn't have to switch packages to get a newer release if they use -beta or -dev IMO :)
-- Ranguvar
i don't care how they update. i just don't want to see another n packages for the same thing just because the maintainer of -dev didn't updated in the second two after a new version was released.
Am Dienstag 08 Dezember 2009 22:00:04 schrieb Ionut Biru:
i don't care how they update. i just don't want to see another n packages for the same thing just because the maintainer of -dev didn't updated in the second two after a new version was released.
Doesn't anybody build a "real" package out of chromium yet? I might have a look otherwise. I think it's stable/usable enough to be put in a repo. (I know they don't release source tarballs, but it should be no really big deal to create them)
On 2009/12/9 下午 02:19, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Dienstag 08 Dezember 2009 22:00:04 schrieb Ionut Biru:
i don't care how they update. i just don't want to see another n packages for the same thing just because the maintainer of -dev didn't updated in the second two after a new version was released.
Doesn't anybody build a "real" package out of chromium yet? I might have a look otherwise. I think it's stable/usable enough to be put in a repo. (I know they don't release source tarballs, but it should be no really big deal to create them)
The chormium-browser-svn works pretty fine for me these days (rebuilding the current one right now). Haven't tried the others, though. I can see, though, how people might not want to be this much on the bleeding edge...
Cheers, Greg
Am Mittwoch 09 Dezember 2009 08:24:28 schrieb Gergely Imreh:
Doesn't anybody build a "real" package out of chromium yet? I might have a look otherwise. I think it's stable/usable enough to be put in a repo. (I know they don't release source tarballs, but it should be no really big deal to create them)
The chormium-browser-svn works pretty fine for me these days (rebuilding the current one right now). Haven't tried the others, though. I can see, though, how people might not want to be this much on the bleeding edge...
Well, the svn package is of course the best of the PKGBUILDs you can find in AUR. Though it cannot be used to build a package for the [extra] repo.
The chromium browser is really becoming a usable browser and there is quite a high demand on having this in a repo.
So, if there are no objections I'll see if it can be packaged "the Arch way" (none of the packages in AUR are compatible with that right now) and I'll then discuss a possible inclusion with the others devs.
Pierre
On 09/26/2009 07:01 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Biru Ionutbiru.ionut@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/26/2009 05:49 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
I think he found the first PKGBUILD not good, and then, instead of fixing it, he disowned it and uploaded another one.
Do you think it's a good idea to create a *wiki page* where we'll propose a universal way of building chromium packages ? Then, a TU or someone else who *can* maintain difficult PKGBUILDs, should upload them.
lets clean it :D.
i will let only one build from ubuntu ppa and only one build from google bot.
I vote for chromium-browser-dev (ppa) and chromium-snapshot(google bot) and chromium-browser-svn which is the only one that is building from source.
If chromium-browser-dev and chromium-snapshot doesn't have proper PKGBUILD for building native 64/32 we should ask the maintainer do that well and if he doesn't do that in couples of days, i will orphan it
what do you think about this?
-- Ionut
Good idea. Three PKGBUILDs only then.
The one is ready (chromium-browser-svn), so we don't have to take care about it, it's OK.
The other two now: they must be autodownloading (like svn/git/cvs) the zip(googlebot) or deb (ppa) and 32 or 64bit according to system's $CARCH variable.
For the first one (googlebot), I already have a PKGBUILD ready for suggestion. If the wikipage is going to be created, i'll post it. For the second one (ppa), it's more difficult because, as I 've tried, wget/curl/elinks (used in order to download the html code and parse it in order to find the latest package), need a lot of commands to clear the html code. And the names used by ppa are also huge.
here is the wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Chromium_proposal
here is the wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Chromium_proposal
OK, i'll post my suggestion and you (and of course anyone who wants to help) will edit the page to make it better.
On 09/26/2009 10:30 PM, Panos Filip wrote:
here is the wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Chromium_proposal
OK, i'll post my suggestion and you (and of course anyone who wants to help) will edit the page to make it better.
bringing this thread alive. we have some suggestion in that proposal, we should start posting PKGBUILD in that wiki to test them.
I am focusing my efforts on the SVN side currently, but looking through the AUR I noticed that (aside from the annoying .deb based packages) IF chromium-browser-latest multi arch functionality were incorporated into chromium-snapshot
chromium-snapshot-64, chromium-snapshot-64-last, and chromium-snapshot-latest would be obsolete.
bringing this thread alive. we have some suggestion in that proposal, we should start posting PKGBUILD in that wiki to test them.
-- Ionut
Randy Penguin schrieb:
I am focusing my efforts on the SVN side currently, but looking through the AUR I noticed that (aside from the annoying .deb based packages) IF chromium-browser-latest multi arch functionality were incorporated into chromium-snapshot
chromium-snapshot-64, chromium-snapshot-64-last, and chromium-snapshot-latest would be obsolete.
bringing this thread alive. we have some suggestion in that proposal, we should start posting PKGBUILD in that wiki to test them.
-- Ionut
On 25.09.2009 20:49, Panos wrote:
Hello to everyone!
I had recently created a thread on bbs.archlinux.org here
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79410
in order to discuss the situration for the numerous chromium packages on AUR.
As I can see, they are getting more and more. I would like to make the discussion on mailing list so that more people would participate.
The list:
1 aur/chromium-browser 4.0.204.0~svn20090831r24879-1 (369) 2 aur/chromium-browser-4.0.219.3 4.0.219.3~svn20090925r27181-1 (0) 3 aur/chromium-browser-dev r26808-1 (107) 4 aur/chromium-browser-inspector r26919-1 (22) 5 aur/chromium-browser-l10n 4.0.219.0~svn20090924r27064-1 (6) 6 aur/chromium-browser-svn `svn info /chromium/src/ | grep (8) 7 aur/chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree r26428-1 (39) 8 aur/chromium-continuous -latest (46) 9 aur/chromium-fresh -latest (25) 10 aur/chromium-snapshot 27035-1 [27188-1] (439) 11 aur/chromium-snapshot-64 27164-5 (110) 12 aur/chromium-snapshot-64-last -6 (40) 13 aur/chromium-snapshot-latest -3 (4) 14 aur/cxchromium 0.9.0-3 (153) 15 aur/iron 3.0.197.0-6 (61)
Except for 15 and 6 which provide a different package, and 14 which is very old, all the others are differently packaged chromium from svn.
Chromium in these packages comes from two sources:
1)build.chromium.org 2)a deb from ppa.launchpad
So I make the same question: do we really need all these packages ? Shouldn't they be less and provide, from fewer PKGBUILDs, the different pre-packaged chromium browser ? Because they are mostly repackaging an already packaged chromium browser, except for (6).
We have two chromium-browser that use a deb package --> shouldn't it be one ? We have chromium-browser-dev --> it is the same as 1 and 2, but it can repackage debs for both architectures. 5 is a l10n package, it is only for the repackaged debs.
We have 4 chromium-snapshot PKGBUILDs (they provide the one from build.chromium.org ). Shouldn't there be only one, which will create a 32 or 64 package from one PKGBUILD ? Just like chromium-browser-dev (which repackages the deb one) and automatically ?
As you can see, it is clearly a bit of a chaos here.
I agree that there's a lot of chaos here. Personally, I don't like any of the repackaged PPAs because it does not seem like a proper solution. I can testify that aur/chromium-browser-svn works very well and it is compiled from SVN directly on the user system. A directly source-built solution like that should be pursued. We don't need any more Ubuntu remixing, it only increases complexity and make for a problematic cross-arch distribution.
-- Sven-Hendrik
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org