On Wednesday 08 Feb 2012 22:47:01 walt wrote: > On 02/08/2012 01:47 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +0000 > > > > Mick<michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Must you use Chrome? What's wrong with Chromium? > > > > Chrome is a binary blob > > Chromium is built from source > > There used to be a chromium-bin a while ago but the maintainer got fed > > up with the hassles of building the damn thing for multiple arches and > > gave up. > > > > The OP *did* say in his opening post that he was fed up with the > > multi-hour emerge when building chromium, hence his desire to tweak > > the chrome ebuild
Nope. Walt said: "I tried and liked google chrome for a few months until I got tired of the multi-hour compile every week or so. The chrome-binary ebuild was removed a while ago, I'm guessing because of library version conflicts, but I dunno for sure." Since chrome != chromium I probably got confused as to which binary the OP actually wanted to use. > Heh. I'm often guilty of posting to long threads without reading the whole > involved thing first. > > I just learned that 'chromium' still exists, and the reason that > chromium-bin disappeared from portage. Not bad work for one thread :) Yes, I didn't know that and was also getting annoyed on how long Chromium takes to build from source on older boxen. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
