On 02/12/2013 12:20 PM, Gé Weijers wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Nux! <nux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I tried building Chromium in the past for EL6 and I gave up as it was >> too difficult for me. Of course someone else might succeed in doing so, >> but even in that case, for how long can he/she keep up with backporting >> updates and so on? >> > It would not be 'backporting' if you'd set up a build environment that uses > a newer GCC and GTK2 library, and statically link against the newer GTK2. > That's a bit of a pain for release engineering, but it's not rocket > science. RHEL6/C6 (and Ubuntu 10.04) desktops are probably a tiny fraction > of Google's user base, so they just may not want to expend the effort. > > Alternatively, one could do something tricky like make a special build of > newer GTK2 libraries built with the newer GCC, and make Chrome load them in > stead of the regular ones. Well, there are hobby users and there are real users. Google SHOULD understand the difference. Most businesses and large user deployments of a Linux desktop would be using things like CentOS, RHEL, SLES, Ubuntu LTS and not the bleeding edge distros with all the new versions of GTK. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are a large number of people using the 6 month distros too ... BUT ... most enterprises I know of that use Linux on the desktop are not among them. Mozilla did figure that out and release their ESR version for these people because they understand that they do make up a significant portion of the people who actually get work done on Linux. Hopefully RH will be able to convince them to continue to provide some kind of support.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
