[CentOS] Chromium browser for C6

[Greg Bailey]

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