How to get latest version of Google Chrome?

[PappyPuppy]

@ PappyPuppy:-

Oh, boy. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it possible. I've never seen anyone make such a hash of installing Chrome in my life.....

But, I'm not one to stop folks enjoying themselves. BTW, since you're obviously having fun doing this the hard way, you might just find these useful:-

https://www.datafilehost.com/d/1b520bd4

I believe you'll find these are all the missing libs Chrome will complain about wanting....

The other option is to install my .pet or SFS package.....and save yourself all that hassle:-

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107301


Mike.

I will take a look at your links (after the dinner hour is over) and see if I can proceed with anything you have or else I'll have to keep going through a long list of missing stuff and hope I get it all - then, at least publish it for the world to use on Fatdog 7.02. Perhaps your links will be of use, as I should be able to simply browse your packages and do some sort of delta or use the lists of debian package dependencies and eventually boil it down. But this way, I have a chance of running either version - it MIGHT work, MIGHT not. I guess if it fails, I can make the big decision - either try to upgrade using your more smooth way or simply forget it and keep my old Chrome.

[PappyPuppy]

I just want to be careful, then fire up Google Chrome and see what happens.

[Mike Walsh]

Make sure to read the extra section I added to the bottom of my previous post; I was editing it while you posted. It's important that you do, otherwise you run the risk of borking half your system up.

That package has been refined over the past couple of years, with input from a lot of different individuals. There's reasons for why everything has been done the way it has..! If you want clarification on anything, just ask. There's no reason why you shouldn't carry on the way you are going......but do try to make sure the overall structure follows the same pattern.

If you need to copy/borrow bits out of my package, feel free.....but remember; two years-worth of work has already been done for you. Be especially sure to check permissions/ownerships on directories.

I shall be around for a couple more hours, then it's off 'up the wooden hill' for me. The Sandman will be calling.....


Mike.

[PappyPuppy]

Make sure to read the extra section I added to the bottom of my previous post; I was editing it while you posted. It's important that you do, otherwise you run the risk of borking half your system up.

That package has been refined over the past couple of years, with input from a lot of different individuals. There's reasons for why everything has been done the way it has..! If you want clarification on anything, just ask. There's no reason why you shouldn't carry on the way you are going......but do try to make sure the overall structure follows the same pattern.

If you need to copy/borrow bits out of my package, feel free.....but remember; two years-worth of work has already been done for you. Be especially sure to check permissions/ownerships on directories.

I shall be around for a couple more hours, then it's off 'up the wooden hill' for me. The Sandman will be calling.....


Mike.

I did actually bork things up enough to make Chrome 58 fail to start but it was easy to fix that so Chrome runs now with one very minor error that I don't anticipate any trouble resolving. I can still browse after not being able to.

But to be safe - I took all of your two years worth of libs and put them in a directory, then prepended that path to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH for when I want to run version 69. This way I assume that it will pick up all the 69 stuff first and ignore what's in my actual /usr/lib64 (should work I would think). That way I am not borking up my lib64 directory at all other than possibly one file related to libnss3, libnss3utils, gtk3.0 or gdk3.0 - one of those has a slight hint of borkness but not much - I'll fix that later. What the real honest problem is, is this: When I try to run google69 version, it's asking for a libpcre.so.3. I did not (or at least not yet) find that one in the set of library files you gave me.

So either:
1) I lost it somehow
2) You lost it somehow
3) It's somewhere - but I just can't find it (and the program can't find it)
4) I need to get it (recommended choice).


I don't think the error - "Failed to set referrer policy" will be hard to track down with google58.

Update:
Finally, I go back to your post - that last little bit you wanted me to read, and I realize that you had already warned me about what I warned myself about too - yes, I too realized that the version over-writing is not a great idea - it will definitely break stuff so I'm close to being back (other than perhaps one file - and I have a backup of that dir anyway). So now I guess the wrapper can help me somehow but I think I just need to find libpcre. whatever and keep trying to start chrome. At least it's just missing something so far.

[PappyPuppy]

Still some errors on startup - but no complaints about missing libraries. But when I browse to Help - About it still shows version 58, not 69 as I would have expected.

The errors might be why?

ERROR: browser_dm_token_storage_linux.cc ... Error etc/machine id contains 32 characters, expecting 32 characters hmpph, ...
some font config warning some element blank
then finally "Created new window in existing browser session".

The result of all this was I have two versions of Google Chrome running - but both are version 58. Apparently, it doesn't want to start up version 69 which is what I'm trying to start.

So far, each version of Chrome with the about box version 58 showing, CAN in fact connect to Yahoo's site without error - but is this just a random lucky thing? I don't know yet. I'll have to do more testing.

I should mention that I believe that there are some libc6 dependencies that I need to look into for libpcre - I need to get their latest from the repository I'm using to fill in the missing libs, as I did NOT download the ones that are needed for libpcre and I would doubt that I have them.

[PappyPuppy]

Then I ran the same old google69.desktop script and it started a fresh version of Chrome 69 - I was a little surprised but not entirely.

My About Chrome says:
Version 69.0.3497.92 (Official Build) (64-bit)

The only problem is that the terminal is showing a host of errors as I'm running - actually just some minor errors something to do with hashing. But it's obviously the right one as I checked it in About dialog and it also looks much different than version 58.

It browses to Yahoo right away no problem. I just need to get all the kinks out. Then when I'm not tired (in the AM some time), try to start all this stuff directly from the desktop rather than the terminal which is how I'm doing them now. Or maybe after I post this message.

So at least I can run the new browser and navigate to Yahoo's site without security warnings - so far so good. Now I can take the night off. Later on.


So as a protective measure, Chrome first checks for earlier versions or running versions, then matches that version so I had to make sure nothing was running, that's all.

I like having my plethora of bookmarks there under the new version - I would guess I have several thousand bookmarks.

[Mike Walsh]

@ PappyPuppy:-

You can safely ignore the stuff you see in the terminal. If it runs.....all well & good..!

The Chromium-based browsers are the 'noisiest' things you've ever seen, so far as the terminal is concerned. I believe Google decided they wanted things that way because it makes things simpler for the host of semi-autonomous 'build bots' that assemble build after test build at the Chromium Project; they have a constant, ongoing 'output' available for the bots to auto-adjust things from one build to the next.

As for running multiple versions of the browser; in my old Tahrpup64 I have the current, 64-bit Chrome, and 32-bit Chromes 48 & 39. If I wanted to, I could run all three simultaneously. The secret?

Keep the 'installs' totally separate. Make sure each browser has its own, independent .cache & .config directories. I achieve that by setting them up in different locations; there's nothing to say that you have to have Chrome in /opt..

Chrome 70 runs in /home/spot.
Chrome 48 runs in /usr/lib.
Chrome 39 runs in /usr/share.

And each version has its hidden .cache & .config directories in that same directory. If they don't already exist, create them; nothing to say you're not 'allowed' to.

Just make sure that the relevant 'wrapper-script' points toward the correct '--user-data-dir' (the .config directory) for that particular browser.


Mike.

[PappyPuppy]

So I need to get the wrappers working. I would suspect that my new version of Google Chrome is using the old config and cache so I should separate them like you said. And I should make my new LD_LIBRARY_PATH permanent.

Update:
I had only to change one little thing to get the google-chrome69.desktop launcher icon to work, which is to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH prepend in my opt/google/chrome/google-chrome script. Once I did this, I can now simply launch Google Chrome 69 from the desktop which was my original goal. The launcher in turn calls my google-chrome69-spot script that has the right path and (currently, does not yet really have where I want the user data, so I need to fix that next). Now I can simply click on my spot script in /usr/bin if I want to start Google Chrome that way rather than from the desktop.

Update:
I should also comment that my version 70 does not yet run. I am using the same libs as with 69 which should work. So I need to figure that one out - why doesn't it run? Update: So far, it is permission denied when I try to run from the terminal using awk. I need to find which thing doesn't have Exec. Update: It was the World bit of Exec on the directory containing the version 70 files (which currently I have in the awkwardest place under Downloads - I should change this for sure). I would never have thought I had needed to set that bit. So version is NOW running.
Version 70.0.3538.67 (Official Build) (64-bit)

Another comment is I have not yet changed my google-chrome-stable scripts to put the library prepend into LD_LIBRARY_PATH - I should probably do this?

[PappyPuppy]

And I just don't have my Linux environment configured to use it or else I or someone can write one that takes the .deb file and goes from there.

[PappyPuppy]

I have started looking into profiles - .config, .cache as possibly being a cause. Creating a new profile has not yet helped. And if I create a different user-data-dir reference, Chrome doesn't start.

I will start it from a terminal and see if I see anything. I thought that the Save As failures are likely profile-related as it wants to know where my Save As usual spot is. I will assume this since it's a simple assumption and keep trying to resolve it. But any ideas appreciated. So far I am using the same profile for Chrome 58, 69, and 70 because I wanted all of my bookmarks, logins, and other cookies intact. Perhaps I have to create new profiles and do some importing and of course, separate them out.

Perhaps I can keep trying to start with different options in the line in the -spot script where it has the user-data-dir specified.

Update:
I ran from the terminal and specifying a different user-data-dir causes a Segment violation and Google Chrome does not start. Perhaps there is something I need to do when I try to get Google-Chrome to use the new data directory location. I might even try to copy the old one to it. At least that might be a start, although I doubt it would help much - it might even hurt since there might be some path issues that I would create.

[PappyPuppy]

However, it still crashes on Save As. I now realize via my terminal session that it tried to save to /dev/fd/4 so it probably doesn't know where to save. Man, I better be careful.

Perhaps I can put the user-data-dir back in and see what the terminal says on "that kind of crash - ie. one where I try to get it to save in the right place" rather than no place at all.

[Mike Walsh]

@ PappyPuppy:-

As I said to you, all this has been taken care of in my packages....

If you look inside the SFS package, go to /usr/share/glib-2.0. You need to install the supplied 'schemas' to that specific directory. One of them is the

"org.gtk.Settings.FileChooser.gschema.xml" file.

That's the kiddie that will stop Chrome crashing upon saving/uploading. In the Chrome package, there's a small script in /usr/sbin (glib.sh) that runs the necessary compile command for those xml files.....and is sym-linked into /root/Startup so as to run it every time you boot.

I still think you're going about this the hard way, mind...!


Mike.

[PappyPuppy]

GLib error on choosing Save As in Chrome:

(google-chrome:6400): Glib-GIO-ERROR **: Settings schema 'org.gtk.Settings.FileChooser' is not installed.

So I need to somehow install that schema or whatever, or at least if it IS installed, allow Chrome to pick it up.

Hmm?

[PappyPuppy]

@ PappyPuppy:-

As I said to you, all this has been taken care of in my packages....

If you look inside the SFS package, go to /usr/share/glib-2.0. You need to install the supplied 'schemas' to that specific directory. One of them is the

"org.gtk.Settings.FileChooser.gschema.xml" file.

That's the kiddie that will stop Chrome crashing upon saving/uploading. In the Chrome package, there's a small script in /usr/sbin (glib.sh) that runs the necessary compile command for those xml files.....and is sym-linked into /root/Startup so as to run it every time you boot.

I still think you're going about this the hard way, mind...!


Mike.

I did not download the files you gave us links for in your Puppy forum post because it was dated in 2016. I thought it would be impossible for you to give me version 70 so long ago - when it didn't exist. To say I'm confused is an understatement. So I should just open the .sfs file and start copying stuff I assume? And I should put the Permission selectors in I assume?
I copied all your stuff and also included Spot2... empty directory. I can pop up a Save As now so things seem to be working much better. There wasn't really much in your .sfs that I needed as I already had the google chrome stuff, just not the Root to Spot and vice-versa and the chooser shemas, perhaps on other thing like a .png up-down file. Thanks for the info and the .sfs file on your google drive!

[Mike Walsh]

I did not download the files you gave us links for in your Puppy forum post because it was dated in 2016. I thought it would be impossible for you to give me version 70 so long ago - when it didn't exist. To say I'm confused is an understatement. So I should just open the .sfs file and start copying stuff I assume? And I should put the Permission selectors in I assume?

2016 is when I started building Chrome packages for Puppy. And the links are in that first post for the simple reason that when folk click on that thread, the link is there, easy as all get-out to find, staring 'em in the face. Saves having to dig around in the thread to find individual links for each release.....

Doesn't that make more sense to you? 'Cos it certainly does for me!

(If you look at the bottom of that first post, you will in fact see that it's been edited a grand total of 52 times. Every time there's a new release, I update the 'Subject line' to reflect that fact.)


Mike.

[PappyPuppy]

I did not download the files you gave us links for in your Puppy forum post because it was dated in 2016. I thought it would be impossible for you to give me version 70 so long ago - when it didn't exist. To say I'm confused is an understatement. So I should just open the .sfs file and start copying stuff I assume? And I should put the Permission selectors in I assume?

2016 is when I started building Chrome packages for Puppy. And the links are in that first post for the simple reason that when folk click on that thread, the link is there, easy as all get-out to find, staring 'em in the face. Saves having to dig around in the thread to find individual links for each release.....

Doesn't that make more sense to you? 'Cos it certainly does for me!

(If you look at the bottom of that first post, you will in fact see that it's been edited a grand total of 52 times. Every time there's a new release, I update the 'Subject line' to reflect that fact.)


Mike.

One-stop shopping - no better way. I didn't realize that there was a REASON why I had needed to look at your .sfs file - that I was missing stuff. I thought I had had everything I had needed. But in the future - please make sure that libpcre is in there - or at least warn us that we have to dig a little! -

[Mike Walsh]

@ PappyPuppy:-

No worries. Do I take it this means you're sorted, now? If so.....excellent.

(BTW, libpcre is not one that's needed by the majority of Pups. It's quite possible that it got thrown up due to your own 'lib-hunting' before I stepped in with the advice. Different versions of libs often have different dependencies of their own.)


Mike.

[PappyPuppy]

No worries. Do I take it this means you're sorted, now? If so.....excellent.

Yes, sorted (library/xml insertion-style). As my way of saying thanks with yet another patronization, I invite you to drop in on my Uncle William's land up in Cumbria any time, although be careful, I don't know if you're welcome, and it's quite a hike at 240 miles from King's Lynn, to get chased off.

William Coulston
Born 1675 Dowgill, Cliburn Morland, Yorkshire, England

Now, back to learning website development with Xammp for me, with a recent lure of using WordPress.com from another Fatdogger.

-Joel

[rufwoof]

I am logged on as root as most Fatdog users would be logged in as.

But it's better to run as spot. I am going to try to run Google Chrome out of a different directory than version 58 as I have version 70 in a new directory I've created. I realize there may be issues with this approach but I want to try it.

In Fatdogs control panel, Updates tab there's a get chrome option that when clicked will create a package in /root that you can then either install or make into a sfs (right click rox options). Works a treat (I've just updated to chrome 70.0.3538.67).

Fatdog is real multi-user, so you can create another userid and log into X using that userid instead of running X as root. That's what I do. Whilst you can su or use gtksu to elevate from user to root within X to run admin tasks, for security reasons I don't, instead I just do admin tasks from the console (with tmux and mc installed along with some dialogs the console can be a nice place to be/use (tip - run the command 'setfont big' if your cli font is too small). There are options again in Control Panel to create additional userid's and/or set how the system logs in/starts up (such as directly auto logging into users X desktop).

Attached is my default console dialog, so to reboot for instance from the X desktop its ctrl-alt-F1 to switch to that terminal/console, press r and then enter. The second image is using mc to make a backup copy of the save folder. And yes they're actual snapshots of the console, not a xterm.

[PappyPuppy]

Thanks - nice to know! And based on the look of your png's, I should improve my boot script for sure.