I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks like the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would be a wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
On 10/14/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks like the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would be a wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can't. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)
This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.
Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.
But, I'll see what I can find out.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
I know you've been busy, but is there any update on this?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/14/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks
like
the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would
be a
wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can't. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)
This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.
Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.
But, I'll see what I can find out.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:
I know you've been busy, but is there any update on this?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/14/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks
like
the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would
be a
wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can't. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)
This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.
Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.
But, I'll see what I can find out.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
(Sorry for the top post earlier)
Found this post on Oct. 17th 2014 at https://access.redhat.com/discussions/650963:
Chris Scarff:
As of RHEL 6.6 (October 2014) it's now included with rhel-6-workstation-supplementary-rpms or rhel-6-server-supplementary-rpms
sudo yum install chromium-browser
- Results:
Installing: chromium-browser x86_64 38.0.2125.101-2.el6_6 rhel-6-workstation-supplementary-rpms 48 M Installing for dependencies: audit-libs-python x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 62 k libcgroup x86_64 0.40.rc1-15.el6_6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 129 k libsemanage-python x86_64 2.0.43-4.2.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 81 k policycoreutils-python x86_64 2.0.83-19.47.el6_6.1 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 346 k setools-libs x86_64 3.3.7-4.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 400 k setools-libs-python x86_64 3.3.7-4.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 222 k Updating for dependencies: audit x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 208 k audit-libs i686 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 72 k audit-libs x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 71 k policycoreutils x86_64 2.0.83-19.47.el6_6.1 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 680 k October 17 2014 at 4:58 PM https://access.redhat.com/discussions/650963#comment-836943
Am 14.10.2014 um 21:29 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
On 10/14/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks like the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would be a wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can't. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)
This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.
Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.
But, I'll see what I can find out.
BTW: http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
-- LF
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 14.10.2014 um 21:29 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
On 10/14/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
I found this bug fix report
http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/
I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks
like
the work has been already done.
Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would
be a
wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.
They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can't. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)
This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.
Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.
But, I'll see what I can find out.
BTW: http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
-- LF
Yes, I'm aware of that build, but I'd love something more "official."
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
BTW: http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the official "supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches, environment, etc... ?
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
BTW:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the official "supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches, environment, etc... ? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I don't know, and that's the point! Personally, I'd be OK with using it, but since my work is audited by the Federal Gum'mint, I don't know how they'd feel about it. :)
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
BTW:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the official "supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches, environment, etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am 06.11.2014 um 23:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/ Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the official "supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches, environment, etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Insight into the process would help to roll it. Speak, are the spec files to build under a GPL-similar force?
The above mentioned version are build and packaged in two different steps. It could be done smarter but that is just cosmetic.
-- LF
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
wrote:
BTW:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
"supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
wrote:
BTW:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
"supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is defined...
-Greg
On 11/07/2014 02:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
wrote:
BTW:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
"supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is defined...
OK new version posted.
This uses the centos-6 testing key and is available here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
The repo file is here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo
This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:
yum remove chromium
then
yum install chromium-browser
Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Am 08.11.2014 um 14:52 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
OK new version posted.
This uses the centos-6 testing key and is available here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
The repo file is here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo
This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:
yum remove chromium
then
yum install chromium-browser
Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny, thank you very much!
-- LF
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/07/2014 02:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org
wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> BTW: >
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
> Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
"supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such
as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is defined...
OK new version posted.
This uses the centos-6 testing key and is available here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
The repo file is here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo
This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:
yum remove chromium
then
yum install chromium-browser
Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser
Thank you so much Johnny. You're the man! My students and I really appreciate your work.
cheers
On 8 November 2014 13:52, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/07/2014 02:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org
wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> BTW: >
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
> Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
"supplementary" ones from RH?
In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel because they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such
as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is defined...
OK new version posted.
This uses the centos-6 testing key and is available here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
The repo file is here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo
This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:
yum remove chromium
then
yum install chromium-browser
Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks for this Johnny. I'm seeing some strange input related issues with it however:
1. It doesn't detect anything typed on the keypad when NumLock is enabled. 2. It's not detecting the return key ie. entering text in a search field and hitting return results in nothing whereas before it would invoke the search.
I'd be happy to provide more information if required.
Thanks, Cian
I concur. Enter key, ^M, etc. has no effect in the browser. Same for number keys.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Cian Mc Govern cian@cianmcgovern.com wrote:
On 8 November 2014 13:52, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/07/2014 02:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org
wrote:
On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian <robark@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <
leonfauster@googlemail.com>
> wrote: > >> BTW: >>
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/chromium/rhel6/x86_64/
>> > Are there any differences between how these rpms were built vs the
official
> "supplementary" ones from RH? > > In other words, were they built with the same libs, patches,
environment,
> etc... ?
Yes, those use the Developer Tool Set .. the ones from Red Hat do
not.
I can not get the Sources for the Red Hat supplemental channel
because
they do distribute the pepperflash component.
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Am I correct in interpreting, that even if RH wanted to release the supplemental package for Chromium to CentOS they would not be able to because it contains the pepperflash component.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53 /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such
as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is defined...
OK new version posted.
This uses the centos-6 testing key and is available here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
The repo file is here:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo
This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:
yum remove chromium
then
yum install chromium-browser
Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks for this Johnny. I'm seeing some strange input related issues with it however:
- It doesn't detect anything typed on the keypad when NumLock is enabled.
- It's not detecting the return key ie. entering text in a search field
and hitting return results in nothing whereas before it would invoke the search.
I'd be happy to provide more information if required.
Thanks, Cian _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 11/14/2014 10:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/12/2014 03:09 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
I concur. Enter key, ^M, etc. has no effect in the browser. Same for number keys.
This is a known issue, I will have another version soon (hopefully by Monday).
There is now a new Chromium pushed:
chromium-browser-38.0.2125.111-1.el6.centos
Am 15.11.2014 um 17:55 schrieb Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:
On 11/14/2014 10:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/12/2014 03:09 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
I concur. Enter key, ^M, etc. has no effect in the browser. Same for number keys.
This is a known issue, I will have another version soon (hopefully by Monday).
There is now a new Chromium pushed:
chromium-browser-38.0.2125.111-1.el6.centos
Thanks!
I noticed that before chromium-browser-38 (e.g. chromium-31), the browser was able to find the "external" flash plugin (/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/...).
I didn't have followed the development but I presume that "such" plugins are not supported anymore, right?
-- LF
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed that before chromium-browser-38 (e.g. chromium-31), the browser was able to find the "external" flash plugin (/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/...).
I didn't have followed the development but I presume that "such" plugins are not supported anymore, right?
Correct. Chromium no longer supports NPAPI Netscape Plugin API.
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-old-friend-npapi.html
So the older 11.2.x version, which btw has no more development from Adobe other than security fixes, works with Firefox only.
The newer 15.x version pepper based flash works with Chromium. But, as far as my understanding goes, that plugin can only be distributed by Google.
Am 17.11.2014 um 08:54 schrieb Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed that before chromium-browser-38 (e.g. chromium-31), the browser was able to find the "external" flash plugin (/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/...).
I didn't have followed the development but I presume that "such" plugins are not supported anymore, right?
Correct. Chromium no longer supports NPAPI Netscape Plugin API.
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-old-friend-npapi.html
Thanks for the clarification!
So the older 11.2.x version, which btw has no more development from Adobe other than security fixes, works with Firefox only.
The newer 15.x version pepper based flash works with Chromium. But, as far as my understanding goes, that plugin can only be distributed by Google.
-- LF
On 11/17/2014 03:41 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
Am 17.11.2014 um 08:54 schrieb Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed that before chromium-browser-38 (e.g. chromium-31), the browser was able to find the "external" flash plugin (/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/...).
I didn't have followed the development but I presume that "such" plugins are not supported anymore, right?
Correct. Chromium no longer supports NPAPI Netscape Plugin API.
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-old-friend-npapi.html
Thanks for the clarification!
So the older 11.2.x version, which btw has no more development from Adobe other than security fixes, works with Firefox only.
The newer 15.x version pepper based flash works with Chromium. But, as far as my understanding goes, that plugin can only be distributed by Google.
I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash .. but this currently works (must do as the root user):
1. Exit any running chromium browsers.
2. Make and change to a temporary working directory ... I use /tmp/chrome/
mkdir /tmp/chrome/
cd /tmp/chrome/
3. Get the latest Google Chrome rpm:
wget https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
(that is all one line, substitute i386 for x86_64 if requried)
4. extract the RPM to the temp directory:
rpm2cpio google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm | cpio -idv
(that is also one line)
5. Copy the PepperFlash directory to the install location:
cp -a opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/ /opt/chromium-browser/
(also all one line)
6. Test that flash is working by opening chrome and going here:
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
7. If everything is working, delete the temp directory:
rm -rf /tmp/chrome/
8. You must redo this after every update of the Chromium RPM to ensure you have the latest flash.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On 17 November 2014 @15:19 zulu, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash
Is it because Adobe said no, or that you never actually asked? Because I was OK'd to distribute FlashPlayer (both the ActiveX and 'other browser' Plugin versions) just by filling out a simple online application. https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=distribution_form&pv...
Or is it because the CentOS Project *won't* distribute it because Adobe doesn't release the source code?
On 11/17/2014 10:05 AM, Darr247 wrote:
On 17 November 2014 @15:19 zulu, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash
Is it because Adobe said no, or that you never actually asked? Because I was OK'd to distribute FlashPlayer (both the ActiveX and 'other browser' Plugin versions) just by filling out a simple online application. https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=distribution_form&pv...
Or is it because the CentOS Project *won't* distribute it because Adobe doesn't release the source code?
Well, Red Hat had to take it out of their build. And in this case the issue is a combination problem with Adobe and Google. Google has permission to build and distribute flash as pepperflash in Chrome.
Red Hat asked and was told no for that combination in chromium.
Adobe's actual flash player no longer works on chromium .. only pepperflash, built by Google.
And Google does not allow chromium builders to distribute that (well they (Google) are only allowed to distribute it by Adobe).
So, the thing I would need to get permission to distribute is the pepperflash.so which is built by Google, which I can not distribute.
So, this is much less a problem of no source code ... it is that I can't build it, Adobe's no longer works, and no one but Google can distribute pepperflash.so legally in the US.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On 11/17/2014 11:49 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/17/2014 10:05 AM, Darr247 wrote:
On 17 November 2014 @15:19 zulu, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash
Is it because Adobe said no, or that you never actually asked? Because I was OK'd to distribute FlashPlayer (both the ActiveX and 'other browser' Plugin versions) just by filling out a simple online application. https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=distribution_form&pv...
Or is it because the CentOS Project *won't* distribute it because Adobe doesn't release the source code?
Well, Red Hat had to take it out of their build. And in this case the issue is a combination problem with Adobe and Google. Google has permission to build and distribute flash as pepperflash in Chrome.
Red Hat asked and was told no for that combination in chromium.
Adobe's actual flash player no longer works on chromium .. only pepperflash, built by Google.
And Google does not allow chromium builders to distribute that (well they (Google) are only allowed to distribute it by Adobe).
So, the thing I would need to get permission to distribute is the pepperflash.so which is built by Google, which I can not distribute.
So, this is much less a problem of no source code ... it is that I can't build it, Adobe's no longer works, and no one but Google can distribute pepperflash.so legally in the US.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Slightly OT - Mozilla is building their own flash player using JS it is called shumway.
On Nov 17, 2014 12:13 PM, "Steve Clark" sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 11/17/2014 11:49 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/17/2014 10:05 AM, Darr247 wrote:
On 17 November 2014 @15:19 zulu, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash
Is it because Adobe said no, or that you never actually asked? Because I was OK'd to distribute FlashPlayer (both the ActiveX and 'other browser' Plugin versions) just by filling out a simple online application.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=distribution_form&pv...
Or is it because the CentOS Project *won't* distribute it because Adobe doesn't release the source code?
Well, Red Hat had to take it out of their build. And in this case the issue is a combination problem with Adobe and Google. Google has permission to build and distribute flash as pepperflash in Chrome.
Red Hat asked and was told no for that combination in chromium.
Adobe's actual flash player no longer works on chromium .. only pepperflash, built by Google.
And Google does not allow chromium builders to distribute that (well they (Google) are only allowed to distribute it by Adobe).
So, the thing I would need to get permission to distribute is the pepperflash.so which is built by Google, which I can not distribute.
So, this is much less a problem of no source code ... it is that I can't build it, Adobe's no longer works, and no one but Google can distribute pepperflash.so legally in the US.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny,
Your build of the later chromiums works great on CO 6.6 (not withstanding the no built in flash support). What would it take to get these into a more timely release schedule? And into a more "standard" repository (e.g. EPEL)? Or, do you have relatively cookbookish build instructions? (Or, has someone already done this?)
Thanks again for what you've done.
Matt
Slightly OT - Mozilla is building their own flash player using JS it is
called shumway.
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 15 November 2014 16:55, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/12/2014 03:09 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
I concur. Enter key, ^M, etc. has no effect in the browser. Same for
number
keys.
This is a known issue, I will have another version soon (hopefully by Monday).
There is now a new Chromium pushed:
chromium-browser-38.0.2125.111-1.el6.centos
Great stuff, thanks Johnny!
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/12/2014 03:09 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
I concur. Enter key, ^M, etc. has no effect in the browser. Same for
number
keys.
This is a known issue, I will have another version soon (hopefully by Monday).
There is now a new Chromium pushed:
chromium-browser-38.0.2125.111-1.el6.centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
+1
(Sorry to be annoying, but this is important to some of us).
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Thanks for the status report Johnny.
Is there anyone we can pester (besides you :) )?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny,
Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95
cheers
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
> Johnny, > > Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 > > cheers > >
bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
1. Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
2. If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 08:01:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Johnny, >> >> Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 >> >> cheers >> >> > > bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need
to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
Thanks for the effort, Johnny, we all appreciate all that you do!
Fred
On 20 January 2015 at 03:44, Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 08:01:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org
wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian <
robark@gmail.com>
wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian <
robark@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >> >>> Johnny, >>> >>> Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> >> >> bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build
it
as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat
legal and
they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in
CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may
not be
able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time
special
permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need
to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
Thanks for the effort, Johnny, we all appreciate all that you do!
Fred
+1 - Thanks Johnny!
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Johnny, >> >> Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 >> >> cheers >> >> > > bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need
to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
Johnny,
Recently on ftp.redhat.com a src rpm for chromium-browser appeared. It has since disappeared. It was located in 6Workstation, 6Client and 6Server.
Does this have anything to do with your request for a chromium-browser src.rpm ?
On Wed, January 21, 2015 3:12 pm, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian > robark@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian >> robark@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Johnny, >>> >>> Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> >> >> bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need
to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
Johnny,
Recently on ftp.redhat.com a src rpm for chromium-browser appeared. It has since disappeared. It was located in 6Workstation, 6Client and 6Server.
Does this have anything to do with your request for a chromium-browser src.rpm ?
Right people to ask would probably be RedHat folks ;-) In any event, why would that matter?! No, this is a rhetoric question.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 21/01/15 21:12, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 06:49 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:55:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/19/2015 04:10 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/19/2015 12:23 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian > robark@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Robert Arkiletian >> robark@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Johnny, >>> >>> Any ETA on version 39.0.2171.95 >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> >> >> bump
If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on ftp.redhat.com or git.centos.org.
Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.
I am sorry, but I can't build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.
Thanks for the update Johnny. So was version 38 just a one time special permission thing?
I very much got yelled at for that.
wait,... I thought Chromium was "open source"... you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven't researched which license it uses...)
Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.
I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:
Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)
If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need
to make more changes.
I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.
One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.
Johnny,
Recently on ftp.redhat.com a src rpm for chromium-browser appeared. It has since disappeared. It was located in 6Workstation, 6Client and 6Server.
Does this have anything to do with your request for a chromium-browser src.rpm ?
its been withdrawn upstream.
given the level of interest in getting this built - can we not get enough attention to the issues and just do a build without needing to rely on what redhat is doing internally ?
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: den 22 januari 2015 18:20 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Chromium browser for C6 its been withdrawn upstream.
given the level of interest in getting this built - can we not get enough attention to the issues and just do a build without needing to rely on what redhat is doing internally ?
Yes, I second that!!
-- //Sorin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Sorin Srbu Sorin.Srbu@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: den 22 januari 2015 18:20 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Chromium browser for C6 its been withdrawn upstream.
given the level of interest in getting this built - can we not get enough attention to the issues and just do a build without needing to rely on what redhat is doing internally ?
Yes, I second that!!
-- //Sorin
The motion being seconded, I now move the question. (Sorry, Roberts Rules of Order are a fascination of mine.)
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Is there some way we might utilize social media to help them understand the demand?
On Fri, November 7, 2014 2:44 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Is there some way we might utilize social media to help them understand the demand?
This is a company that exists for getting profit. What do you suggest we offer them in exchange?
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2014 2:44 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Is there some way we might utilize social media to help them understand the demand?
This is a company that exists for getting profit. What do you suggest we offer them in exchange?
Numbers of users. I assume that if you log in to your account with chromium they'll get whatever they want without additional help (like at least being able to tie your account to an IP/location and your google searches). On the other hand they are probably right that if you are using a system as a desktop you should just upgrade it to CentOS 7 where their packaged version 'just works'. In fact I'm posting with it now.
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I am sorry, but Google is not interested in supporting CentOS.
Is there some way we might utilize social media to help them understand the demand?
I installed from the repo given here a month ago and it works fine. I something wrong with this google repo? Should I remove and reinstall from the new one given here on this list?
Steve
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Steve Brooks wrote:
I installed from the repo given here a month ago and it works fine. I something wrong with this google repo? Should I remove and reinstall from the new one given here on this list?
Correction this is the repo file
[google-chrome] name=google-chrome baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1
It installs and works.. youtube videos play.
On 11/08/2014 01:48 PM, Steve Brooks wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Steve Brooks wrote:
I installed from the repo given here a month ago and it works fine. I something wrong with this google repo? Should I remove and reinstall from the new one given here on this list?
Correction this is the repo file
[google-chrome] name=google-chrome baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1
It installs and works.. youtube videos play.
I am sure that is for CentOS-7 ... that does not work for CentOS-6.
The Google repo is fine for CentOS-7.
On 08 November 2014 @19:48 zulu, Steve Brooks wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Steve Brooks wrote:
I installed from the repo given here a month ago and it works fine. I something wrong with this google repo? Should I remove and reinstall from the new one given here on this list?
Correction this is the repo file
[google-chrome] name=google-chrome baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1
It installs and works.. youtube videos play.
The only way that would work for C6 is if the script from Richard Lloyd, or similar, is used to segregate newer libraries from f15 and f17 into e.g. /opt/google/chrome/lib so versions of Chrome newer than v27 will install and run on C6, but other programs won't use those libraries.
C7 uses those newer libraries by default, so such an installation script isn't needed to make Chrome work on C7. For now, anyway. :)
Chromium (see subject line) is the open source version of Chrome, of course.
On 11/10/2014 03:43 AM, Darr247 wrote:
The only way that would work for C6 is if the script from Richard Lloyd, or similar, is used to segregate newer libraries from f15 and f17 into e.g. /opt/google/chrome/lib so versions of Chrome newer than v27 will install and run on C6, but other programs won't use those libraries.
C7 uses those newer libraries by default, so such an installation script isn't needed to make Chrome work on C7. For now, anyway. :)
Chromium (see subject line) is the open source version of Chrome, of course.
The proper way to fix this for C6 is to backport those libraries to C6 in a 3rd-party repository. This should be doable without conflicting with the existing older libs in C6.
At this point Chrome should be install-able from their own repo without having to pull any further stunts.
Peter
-
Cian Mc Govern -
Connie Sieh -
Darr247 -
Fred Smith -
Greg Bailey -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
Peter -
Phelps, Matthew -
Robert Arkiletian -
Sorin Srbu -
Steve Brooks -
Steve Clark -
Valeri Galtsev