On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at 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 at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster < >> leonfauster at 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