| 1 |
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:47:01 -0800 |
| 2 |
walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 02/08/2012 01:47 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:18 +0000 |
| 6 |
> > Mick<michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> >> Must you use Chrome? What's wrong with Chromium? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Chrome is a binary blob |
| 11 |
> > Chromium is built from source |
| 12 |
> > There used to be a chromium-bin a while ago but the maintainer got |
| 13 |
> > fed up with the hassles of building the damn thing for multiple |
| 14 |
> > arches and gave up. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > The OP *did* say in his opening post that he was fed up with the |
| 17 |
> > multi-hour emerge when building chromium, hence his desire to tweak |
| 18 |
> > the chrome ebuild |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Heh. I'm often guilty of posting to long threads without reading the |
| 21 |
> whole involved thing first. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You're in good company :-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Done that too - more than once! |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I just learned that 'chromium' still exists, and the reason that |
| 29 |
> chromium-bin disappeared from portage. Not bad work for one thread :) |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 37 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives