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.