On 11/07/2014 01:20 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
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.
The "chromium-browser" RPM from the supplemental channel doesn't appear
to have pepperflash included in it:
$ rpm -qilv chromium-browser|grep -i flash
As opposed to "google-chrome-stable":
$ rpm -qilv google-chrome-stable | grep -i flash
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Oct 21 18:53
/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17350240 Oct 21 18:53
/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2045 Oct 21 18:53
/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/manifest.json
The .spec file for chromium-browser does have conditionals in it, such as:
%define flash 0
Looks like pepperflash is added from google-chrome-stable if flash is
defined...
-Greg
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
