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

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.

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,