Am 06.11.2014 um 23:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 11/06/2014 02:30 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Robert Arkiletian <robark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Leon Fauster <leonfauster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
Insight into the process would help to roll it. Speak,
are the spec files to build under a GPL-similar force?
The above mentioned version are build and packaged in
two different steps. It could be done smarter but that
is just cosmetic.
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
