| 1 |
On Wednesday 08 Feb 2012 22:47:01 walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/08/2012 01:47 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +0000 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Mick<michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Must you use Chrome? What's wrong with Chromium? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Chrome is a binary blob |
| 9 |
> > Chromium is built from source |
| 10 |
> > There used to be a chromium-bin a while ago but the maintainer got fed |
| 11 |
> > up with the hassles of building the damn thing for multiple arches and |
| 12 |
> > gave up. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > The OP *did* say in his opening post that he was fed up with the |
| 15 |
> > multi-hour emerge when building chromium, hence his desire to tweak |
| 16 |
> > the chrome ebuild |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Nope. Walt said: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"I tried and liked google chrome for a few months until I got tired |
| 21 |
of the multi-hour compile every week or so. The chrome-binary ebuild |
| 22 |
was removed a while ago, I'm guessing because of library version |
| 23 |
conflicts, but I dunno for sure." |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Since chrome != chromium I probably got confused as to which binary the OP |
| 26 |
actually wanted to use. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Heh. I'm often guilty of posting to long threads without reading the whole |
| 30 |
> involved thing first. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I just learned that 'chromium' still exists, and the reason that |
| 33 |
> chromium-bin disappeared from portage. Not bad work for one thread :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yes, I didn't know that and was also getting annoyed on how long Chromium |
| 36 |
takes to build from source on older boxen. |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
Mick |
Archives