Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[Mick]

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 +
> > 
> > Mick  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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:47:01 -0800
walt  wrote:

> On 02/08/2012 01:47 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +
> > Mick  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
> 
> Heh. I'm often guilty of posting to long threads without reading the
> whole involved thing first.

You're in good company :-)

Done that too - more than once!

> 
> I just learned that 'chromium' still exists, and the reason that
> chromium-bin disappeared from portage.  Not bad work for one thread :)
> 
> 



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[walt]

On 02/08/2012 01:47 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +
Mick  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


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 :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +
Mick  wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 Feb 2012 17:53:59 walt wrote:
> > On 02/07/2012 09:16 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 2012 12:03 AM, "walt"  > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > >> Now that Pandu has mentioned it, I can edit the google-chrome
> > >> ebuild to do what I want :)  The part where I install the
> > >> obsolete libpng12 in the /opt/google/chrome directory instead
> > >> of /usr/lib is the part I'm not sure about.
> > > 
> > > I think you can peek into libpng12's ebuild, and transfer the
> > > relevant parts (e.g. those retrieving the source and doing the
> > > compile), and adapt the installation parts.
> > > 
> > > Don't forget to put your custom ebuild in your local overlay, lest
> > > emerge --sync will happily 'revert' your ebuild to what it was :-)
> > 
> > Thanks.  I've learned something from this thread in spite of
> > myself :p
> 
> 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
 

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[Mick]

On Tuesday 07 Feb 2012 17:53:59 walt wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 09:16 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2012 12:03 AM, "walt"  > 
> > > wrote:
> >> Now that Pandu has mentioned it, I can edit the google-chrome
> >> ebuild to do what I want :)  The part where I install the obsolete
> >> libpng12 in the /opt/google/chrome directory instead of /usr/lib is
> >> the part I'm not sure about.
> > 
> > I think you can peek into libpng12's ebuild, and transfer the
> > relevant parts (e.g. those retrieving the source and doing the
> > compile), and adapt the installation parts.
> > 
> > Don't forget to put your custom ebuild in your local overlay, lest
> > emerge --sync will happily 'revert' your ebuild to what it was :-)
> 
> Thanks.  I've learned something from this thread in spite of myself :p

Must you use Chrome?  What's wrong with Chromium?
-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[walt]

On 02/07/2012 09:16 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:


On Feb 8, 2012 12:03 AM, "walt" mailto:w41...@gmail.com>> wrote:




Now that Pandu has mentioned it, I can edit the google-chrome
ebuild to do what I want :)  The part where I install the obsolete
libpng12 in the /opt/google/chrome directory instead of /usr/lib is
the part I'm not sure about.



I think you can peek into libpng12's ebuild, and transfer the
relevant parts (e.g. those retrieving the source and doing the
compile), and adapt the installation parts.

Don't forget to put your custom ebuild in your local overlay, lest
emerge --sync will happily 'revert' your ebuild to what it was :-)


Thanks.  I've learned something from this thread in spite of myself :p

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[Pandu Poluan]

On Feb 8, 2012 12:03 AM, "walt"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 21:59 -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> > On 6 February 2012 21:42, walt  wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> > you seem to have missed a very simple way to do all this:
> >
> > emerge google-chrome
>
> Very interesting, thanks for pointing that out.  What I missed is that
> in recent months the former (home-compiled) chrome package was removed
> and the chrome-binary package was renamed to google-chrome (I suppose
> the google brand was supposed to clue me in that I'm installing the
> google build rather than the gentoo build).
>
> However, the newer google-chrome package forces the downgrade of libpng
> to libpng12 for the entire machine, which I don't want, so I'll continue
> to use my simple home-brew method.
>
> Now that Pandu has mentioned it, I can edit the google-chrome ebuild to
> do what I want :)  The part where I install the obsolete libpng12 in
> the /opt/google/chrome directory instead of /usr/lib is the part I'm
> not sure about.
>

I think you can peek into libpng12's ebuild, and transfer the relevant
parts (e.g. those retrieving the source and doing the compile), and adapt
the installation parts.

Don't forget to put your custom ebuild in your local overlay, lest emerge
--sync will happily 'revert' your ebuild to what it was :-)

Rgds,

[gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[walt]

On 02/07/2012 08:57 AM, walt wrote:


However, the newer google-chrome package forces the downgrade of libpng
to libpng12 for the entire machine


Damn, fooled again by the ebuild message after installing libpng12 :(

The post-install message announces that I now need to run revdep-rebuild
to fix the breakage, but in fact libpng12 and libpng15 are both installed
side-by-side now.

So, your original advice to emerge google-chrome seems to work nicely :)

[gentoo-user] Re: Quick and dirty install of google chrome binary package

[walt]

On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 21:59 -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 6 February 2012 21:42, walt  wrote:

> > 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.


> you seem to have missed a very simple way to do all this:
> 
> emerge google-chrome

Very interesting, thanks for pointing that out.  What I missed is that
in recent months the former (home-compiled) chrome package was removed
and the chrome-binary package was renamed to google-chrome (I suppose 
the google brand was supposed to clue me in that I'm installing the 
google build rather than the gentoo build).

However, the newer google-chrome package forces the downgrade of libpng 
to libpng12 for the entire machine, which I don't want, so I'll continue
to use my simple home-brew method.

Now that Pandu has mentioned it, I can edit the google-chrome ebuild to 
do what I want :)  The part where I install the obsolete libpng12 in 
the /opt/google/chrome directory instead of /usr/lib is the part I'm
not sure about.