On 25 November 2015 at 17:55, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:50:43AM +0000, Richard Melville wrote: >> On 25 November 2015 at 10:07, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > For the past year I've been using Chromium and Firefox on BLFS. The >> > chromium >> > browser is the open source version of Chrome and works really fast. I'm >> > wondering if there is enough interest in adding and maintaining this in the >> > book? >> > >> > It has plenty of dependencies, which are all in the BLFS book, except the >> > build tool "ninja" which you can compile in around 0.1 SBU, don't install >> > and then use for compiling chromium. Afterwards you can remove it so it's >> > not really a dependency. >> > >> > Compilation time is comparable to LibreOffice, around 200 SBU. >> > >> > I build chromium mainly based on the scripts from Arch linux and Gentoo. >> >> >> I like the idea -- I haven't built it myself, but I have used it. >> Recently I've been looking at the Iridium https://iridiumbrowser.de/ >> alternative, a secure browser built on Chromium but with all the >> Google "call home" stuff removed. The source code, as well as the >> binaries, is available on the website; maybe it's a better >> alternative. >> > > When chromium was mentioned in the past, I think that the size was > as much of a problem as the build times (lots of local, modified, > libraries in the source). Add in the "call home" stuff and I cannot > see the point of trying to build it (I used to have small > partitions). > > Also, in the past few months my impression is that there were many > vulnerabilities being found in chromium. I don't keep a count, but I > have seen several mentions in the security reports of lwn - looking > there, and ignoring what appear to be multiple reports for the same > family of distros, in the last month (from October 26th) I think that > Mageia has updated twice, OpenSuse 3 times, and Arch once (it is > possible that Arch were ahead of the game, they had a batch of fixes > 12 days earlier). That sounds like a lot of work to keep the book > current, particularly for a package which is so slow to build. > > Iridium sounds nicer, but I have no idea how the maintenance burden > would compare. Also, looking at their tarballs, the size is growing > as badly as firefox, but from a higher base (347M for 46, 378M for > 47 -test1).
I hadn't noticed the size of the tarball -- that is huge. Richard -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
