This looks great for replacing Google sync. Are there any self-hosted open source sync servers users can directly replace with (Not an extension or so)? This would be great for users who still need native sync when the Chromium APIs were disabled. This is my first time replying to Arch mailing list, so correct me if there's anything wrong. Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:13:17PM -0600, Don Harper via arch-general wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0600, Don Harper wrote to To General > Discussion about Arch Linux: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 07:12:24PM +0000, Mike Cloaked via arch-general > > wrote to To General Discussion about Arch Linux: > > > 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 > > > > >> <arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> > > > > >> Sent: Wed Jan 20 02:09:17 CET 2021 > > > > >> To: <arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> > > > > >> Cc: Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> > > > > >> 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? > > One can always use a non-google sync solution. One I have been using for a > bit is https://github.com/marcelklehr/floccus which is cross-browser and > self-hosted. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > Don Harper
