On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
