[blfs-support] Chromium

Richard Melville richard.melville69 at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 25 10:34:02 PST 2015


On 25 November 2015 at 17:55, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:50:43AM +0000, Richard Melville wrote:
>> On 25 November 2015 at 10:07,  <willie at tuta.io> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > For the past year I've been using Chromium and Firefox on BLFS. The chromium
>> > browser is the open source version of Chrome and works really fast. I'm
>> > wondering if there is enough interest in adding and maintaining this in the
>> > book?
>> >
>> > It has plenty of dependencies, which are all in the BLFS book, except the
>> > build tool "ninja" which you can compile in around 0.1 SBU, don't install
>> > and then use for compiling chromium. Afterwards you can remove it so it's
>> > not really a dependency.
>> >
>> > Compilation time is comparable to LibreOffice, around 200 SBU.
>> >
>> > I build chromium mainly based on the scripts from Arch linux and Gentoo.
>>
>>
>> I like the idea -- I haven't built it myself, but I have used it.
>> Recently I've been looking at the Iridium https://iridiumbrowser.de/
>> alternative, a secure browser built on Chromium but with all the
>> Google "call home" stuff removed.  The source code, as well as the
>> binaries, is available on the website; maybe it's a better
>> alternative.
>>
>
> When chromium was mentioned in the past, I think that the size was
> as much of a problem as the build times (lots of local, modified,
> libraries in the source).  Add in the "call home" stuff and I cannot
> see the point of trying to build it (I used to have small
> partitions).
>
> Also, in the past few months my impression is that there were many
> vulnerabilities being found in chromium.  I don't keep a count, but I
> have seen several mentions in the security reports of lwn - looking
> there, and ignoring what appear to be multiple reports for the same
> family of distros, in the last month (from October 26th) I think that
> Mageia has updated twice, OpenSuse 3 times, and Arch once (it is
> possible that Arch were ahead of the game, they had a batch of fixes
> 12 days earlier).  That sounds like a lot of work to keep the book
> current, particularly for a package which is so slow to build.
>
> Iridium sounds nicer, but I have no idea how the maintenance burden
> would compare.  Also, looking at their tarballs, the size is growing
> as badly as firefox, but from a higher base (347M for 46, 378M for
> 47 -test1).

I hadn't noticed the size of the tarball -- that is huge.

Richard


More information about the blfs-support mailing list