(OLD) (ARCHIVED) Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index (OLD) (ARCHIVED) Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info

This forum can also be accessed as http://oldforum.puppylinux.com
It is now read-only and serves only as archives.

Please register over the NEW forum
https://forum.puppylinux.com
and continue your work there. Thank you.

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups    
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 26 Feb 2021, 00:05
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
64-bit Google-Chrome 'portable' packages
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 3 [43 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 04 Jan 2020, 15:36    Post subject:  64-bit Google-Chrome 'portable' packages
Subject description: New release : Chrome 83.0.4103.61
 

'Portable' builds of Google Chrome


Evening, all.

Okay. This will be the last one from me.....I promise! Laughing Laughing

I only started messing about with these Chromium-based 'portables' around a week ago. I've had the idea for doing one at the back of my mind for a long time, but it's only recently that several wee snippets of code have steadily come together all at the same time.....as a result of which there's been an explosion of Chromium portable 'clones' over the last few days.

Purely at random, I started playing around with Opera a week ago. It worked well; so well, in fact, that I began experimenting with my favourite Chromium 'clone', Iron. After some false starts, I finally cobbled together a set-up that worked (thanks to a snippet of code proffered by Fred), and put together a couple of packages the night before last.

I had a play around with getting a portable Chrome to run yesterday.....but it wasn't playing ball. Complaints in the terminal about not being able to get a 'SingletonLock', and errors when it came to creating, and populating, the profile directory, so I put it on the back burner.

---------------------------------------------

I'd been following the thread by RickGT351 about getting the 'Brave' browser running in Xenialpup64. Earlier today, I got a PM from Mikeslr, with the suggestion that since I seemed to be 'on a roll' with these portables, why not take a crack at one for Brave? Not one to turn down a challenge, I set to.....

Brave is like Chrome, in that it insists on running as a 'normal user' ('spot'-related stuff, in other words.) Anyway; initially, I was getting the exact same issues I'd had with trying to make a portable Chrome work - see above. Previously, I'd been trying to create an entire 'spot' environment within the package.....but then I thought, 'Hang about, Mike; you're doing your usual trick.....over-thinking things again. Let's try for simple, instead...'

So; the Brave directory got 'spot' permissions. The wrapper-script got the 'run-as-spot' prefix on the exec line.....and the launch script (separate, rather than sym-linked - as suggested by Fred, to get round the sym-link 'issue' for those running Puppy from FAT32) also got the 'run-as-spot' prefix on the exec-line, too. Fingers crossed, I fired it up from the terminal; held my breath, and.....it bloody well worked! Neat. So, I zipped the package & uploaded earlier today.....

-----------------------------------

Thinking about it, I realised the issues were the same as the Chrome-portable I tried building yesterday. So; I assembled an identical package for the newest version of Chrome, with permissions & exec commands all the same. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, I suppose, given that all Chromium 'clones' share more or less the same main code-base; TBH, it was almost an anti-climax when I fired it up from the terminal. Still; after a few seconds, there appeared the small, initial Chrome window, asking if you want to make it the default browser, and should it send data to Big Brother's servers, etc. I made my selection, OK'ed it.....and up it came. A HUGE sigh of relief; finally, I'd achieved what I'd been toying with for the last couple of years.....a totally portable, self-contained, Puppy package of the world's most popular browser.

YESSS!!!

-----------------------------------------------------

I have to apologise here for the current lack of WideVine, so.....ATM, this means no NetFlix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, etc.

Previously, libwidevinecdm.so just sat in the main directory, and I guess the browser was coded to look for it there. In recent releases, libwidevine has been moved into its own sub-directory. Now, I presume the browser has been 're-jigged' to look for it in the new location.....but all I can tell you is that in Puppy, at least, WideVine is, for now, totally 'invisible' to the browser. It simply doesn't 'see' it any longer, and it doesn't show up in the components list at chrome://components any more.

Sym-linking it out into the main directory doesn't make a scrap of difference....

I'm still investigating this. It needs fixing, because one of Chrome's main claims to fame, for a lot of people, has always been the fact that it's been able to play NetFlix, etc, OOTB.....

-----------------------------------------

Now then; the download itself. It's available from my Google Drive, as usual.....from here:-

Download location - Google-Chrome 'portable'

It will live here from now on; I will endeavour, at least, to keep a version of each major release here, as & when.

Checksums for this release:-

MD5 - 16bf931f73c058596af3f14315589bbd
SHA256 - 103181a5ac1fba3901912ecb344858ed7ddbd555ab334efc66bd8bff00430480

[Same routine as with the other portable 'clones'. Download; unzip, and move the 'portable' directory anywhere you want. Click to enter.....and launch by clicking on the 'LAUNCH' script. Easy-peasy.]


Enjoy! Feedback is, as usual, invited.....and always welcome.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES


Last edited by Mike Walsh on Wed 20 May 2020, 07:06; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
thinkpadfreak

Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 98

PostPosted: Tue 07 Jan 2020, 07:40    Post subject:  

Hello.
I have used your 'portable' version. The 'portable' directory has to be in Linux partition, doesn't it?

By the way, I would like to know if Chrome 79 works fine on Puppy.
In my environment, Chrome 79 sometimes 'freezes' for several seconds. For example, when I watch YouTube videos, they sometimes stop for several seconds.

I have noticed that this happens at least on XenialPup64 and Bionicpup64.
I also tried the .deb package from Google, which ended up with the same result. Such a thing never happened before Chrome version 79.

Strangely, Chromium 79 installed from Ubuntu .deb packages works fine, though Chrome and Chromium seem to be built from almost the same source.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 07 Jan 2020, 09:02    Post subject:  

@ thinkpadfreak:-

No, you're not the only one that's noticed the 'hang-ups', and prolonged 'hesitations', either. I have, as well.....which was why I delayed publishing any packages for Chrome 79.

If you follow the Chrome 'blog' (as I have done for the last few years), you soon notice a definite 'pattern' in the Comments section for each release; time after time, there's a whole series of complaints about stuff no longer working as it should. 99 times out of 100, it always seems to affect the Windoze versions.....to date, Linux versions have been pretty much trouble-free.

It may just be a temporary glitch. Google (and the Chromium Project, their 'R & D' department!) have a pretty active 'bug-bounty' programme, with cash incentives for discovering & notifying them of 'issues'. Things don't usually take long to get sorted out.....and the semi-autonomous 'build-bots' are churning out at least one 'new' variant every hour or so (day and night, continuously).

As for the Chromium version being trouble-free, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Remember, Google add a fair bit of their own, closed-source proprietary code to the Chromium code-base when they release Chrome. I couldn't even begin to hazard a guess at what it's doing.....


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
thinkpadfreak

Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 98

PostPosted: Wed 08 Jan 2020, 02:29    Post subject:  

Mike wrote:
Quote:

No, you're not the only one that's noticed the 'hang-ups', and prolonged 'hesitations', either. I have, as well.....which was why I delayed publishing any packages for Chrome 79.


I am a little bit relieved to hear that.

Quote:

As for the Chromium version being trouble-free, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Remember, Google add a fair bit of their own, closed-source proprietary code to the Chromium code-base when they release Chrome. I couldn't even begin to hazard a guess at what it's doing.....


I also tried Vivaldi (based on Chromium 79), but I got the same result. The browser sometimes paused for several seconds.

I am impressed that ubuntu developers managed to get over the problem.
Though you took the trouble to make a portable version, I regret to say that I don't feel like using the current version of Chrome. I am thinking of switching to Chromium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Wed 08 Jan 2020, 06:56    Post subject:  

@ thinkpadfreak:-

thinkpadfreak wrote:
I am impressed that ubuntu developers managed to get over the problem.
Though you took the trouble to make a portable version, I regret to say that I don't feel like using the current version of Chrome. I am thinking of switching to Chromium.


No problemo, mi amigo. I'm all for maximum choice for Puppians.....which is why I research, produce packages for, and try out as many browsers as I can.

Chrome was for many years my 'go-to' browser, but in recent years its implementation in Puppy just seems to be getting harder & harder.....and, in truth, I just don't like a lot of the recent design decisions they've been making.

In all likelihood, that 'go-to' slot will soon be permanently occupied by Opera. It's that good.

Good luck with Chromium.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
dancytron

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Posts: 1555

PostPosted: Wed 08 Jan 2020, 15:40    Post subject: Re: Google-Chrome 'portable'
Subject description: FINALLY; a totally portable 'Puppy' package of the world's favourite browser....
 

Mike Walsh wrote:
'Portable' builds of Google Chrome



-----------------------------------------------------

I have to apologise here for the current lack of WideVine, so.....ATM, this means no NetFlix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, etc.

Previously, libwidevinecdm.so just sat in the main directory, and I guess the browser was coded to look for it there. In recent releases, libwidevine has been moved into its own sub-directory. Now, I presume the browser has been 're-jigged' to look for it in the new location.....but all I can tell you is that in Puppy, at least, WideVine is, for now, totally 'invisible' to the browser. It simply doesn't 'see' it any longer, and it doesn't show up in the components list at chrome://components any more.

Sym-linking it out into the main directory doesn't make a scrap of difference....

I'm still investigating this. It needs fixing, because one of Chrome's main claims to fame, for a lot of people, has always been the fact that it's been able to play NetFlix, etc, OOTB.....

/snipped
Mike. Wink


The path of the widevine file on my google's repository chrome stable apt-get install is /opt/google/chrome/WidevineCdm/_platform_specific/linux_x64/libwidevinecdm.so , if that helps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
seaside

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Fri 10 Jan 2020, 17:47    Post subject: Opera-portable and Google_Chrome  

Mike,

I've always been fond of the Opera browser and recently downloaded your file "Opera-portable.tar.gz" - your work on browsers is much appreciated and thank you.

I installed it in "debiandog stretch" and all worked very nicely except for Netflix and Flash.

In looking over the opera directory structure, three files are key to Netflix and Flash and located in the "resources" directory:

ffmpeg_preload_config.json
widevine_config.json
pepper_flash_config.json

Since these files point to where the libs are located, they have to be changed according to where Opera portable is installed

Below are some changes made to the LAUNCH script which might be used.
Code:

#!/bin/sh
#
# Launcher for 'portable' Opera browser
#
export HERE="$(dirname "$(readlink -f "$0")")"

sudo tee "$HERE"/opera/resources/pepper_flash_config.json >/dev/null <<EOF
{
  "PepperFlashPaths" : [
    "${HERE}/opera/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so"   
  ]
}
EOF

sudo tee "$HERE"/opera/resources/ffmpeg_preload_config.json >/dev/null <<EOF
[
  "${HERE}/opera/libffmpeg.so"
]
EOF

sudo tee "$HERE"/opera/resources/widevine_config.json >/dev/null <<EOF
[
   {
      "preload" : "${HERE}/opera/libwidevinecdm.so"
   }
]
EOF


"$HERE/opera/opera-browser" "$@"


It exports the "HERE" variable and rewrites the "config.json" files to show the libs locations.

Smilingly, now watching Netflix running without the "oops error" Very Happy

Cheers,
s
(Haven't tried the VPN part yet ..... and expect it to be slow....)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jan 2020, 10:25    Post subject:  

@ seaside:-

seaside wrote:
I've always been fond of the Opera browser and recently downloaded your file "Opera-portable.tar.gz" - your work on browsers is much appreciated and thank you.


Ah, you're very welcome. I only put the work in on all these different browsers for two reasons; one, because the browser is the one, indispensable item that lets us all keep in touch with each other, and two; because my maxim, where Puppy is concerned, has always been 'Choice in all things'.

---------------------------------------

Many thanks for the modification, BTW. I thought I'd got these 'sorted; obviously not. And not following 'proper procedure' didn't help.....

Prior to using the 'portable' in Bionicpup64 & Xenialpup64, I'd been using the SFS package which I'd built. By rights, I ought to have tested this using 'pfix=ram', so as to bypass the save-file.....but, me being me, I thought simply unloading the SFS would do the trick.

I overlooked one thing.

I've found out, over the years, with SFS packages of any of the Chromium 'clones', that even after an SFS is unloaded, there's invariably a directory left-over with a few odds'n'ends in it. In this case, it just happened to be a directory called 'opera', in /usr/lib.....and the left-overs just happened to be libffmpeg.so, libwidevinecdm.so, and libpepflashplayer.so.....plus a couple of left-over text files.

This being the case, Opera was of course finding the required bits, according to the original modifications I'd made to the 'resource' file-paths. And because everything appeared to be working, I never even thought to dig any deeper, did I?

(*Bad Mike..!*) Shocked Rolling Eyes Embarassed

---------------------------------------

The research into the use of the 'tee' command is very much appreciated. Now that I see how it works, I have a feeling this might come in handy for some of the other 'portables', too.

ATM, Opera-portable is now working as intended, according to the terminal output.....having removed the 'sudo' instances (which Pup doesn't use). However, to test it out thoroughly, I'm now going to edit my menu.lst file and try it out in a 'pristine' Bionicpup64; and not only that, but move it around from one location to another, to check that this 'tee' command is doing what it's supposed to.

I'll report back shortly.

----------------------------------------

[EDIT]:- Yup. It's working beautifully. Moved it around 2 or 3 times; each time it re-wrote the 'resource' paths, so that Opera always found the various components as & when it wanted them.

That is a very neat way to make sure that any 'portable' item will always be able to find whatever it needs, regardless of where you actually place it. In some ways, it's actually more 'flexible' than using a location 'variable'; I've found myself in recent weeks that even those don't always behave as expected. Sweet!

I know most folks in the Linux world see there's no real need for them, but when all else fails, an 'absolute' path has always worked for me.

Anyway; thanks a TON, young man. This is what I like about our wee community; we all help each other out (I'm certainly not too proud to ask for, or accept help). In the long run, it leads to a better 'user-experience' for everyone.

I'll re-jig, re-pack & re-upload the portable tarball with the new modifications. I'll post about this in the Opera-portable thread, with a link back here to your script, for anyone who's interested....OK?

Posting this from Opera-portable running in Xenialpup64.

Cheers!


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Sat 11 Jan 2020, 15:39    Post subject:  

[Edited - unneeded post]
_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 21 Jan 2020, 22:02    Post subject:  

Evening, all.

Due to a change in my situation - and the fact that it means I shall be concentrating on the newest Pups, and seriously 'pruning' the kennels - I shall henceforth be re-opening this project, since I'll have more time to devote to it from now on.

-------------------------

The Widevine 'issue' has been sorted, and NetFlix et al are all playing 'nice' again. In the end, all it took was modifying the 'manifest.json' file that accompanies the Widevine module in its new location. Big Brother had specified 32- and 64-bit Windows, and 64-bit Macs.....but had 'conveniently' forgotten to specify Linux, hadn't he? Rolling Eyes

So; I just duplicated the 'Mac' stanza' of the file, and modified it to read for Linux instead. Problem 'fixed'.

dancytron wrote:
The path of the widevine file on my google's repository chrome stable apt-get install is /opt/google/chrome/WidevineCdm/_platform_specific/linux_x64/libwidevinecdm.so , if that helps.


Thanks for that, Dan. It was in the right general area, for sure.....though it still took some digging around to find out just what BB had done, followed by a certain amount of inspired guesswork to actually fix it!

Google never cease to amaze me, y'know. Despite freely making use of no end of Linux & Linux-based/inspired software in their company infrastructure, they still continue to try their level best to piss all over the very group of people who provided them with it in the first place....

Leopards very definitely don't change their spots, do they? Laughing

-------------------------

The 'portable' version of Google Chrome 79.0.3945.88 can be found at the location in post#1 above.

MD5 - 879c809175c1fcc511292374723f6804
Sha256 - a0a9b1ec49d7b5fded9de71a4bb9df7cbf864fcd8efd4896db3ea3ddae273f67

Do be warned that this particular release seems a bit more buggy & crash-prone than I've seen for quite a while.....though Google do make boo-boos like this from time to time.

----------------------------

Due to the need to run Chrome as user 'spot', this still isn't truly portable.....as evidenced by the fact that it makes use of spot's Downloads & Uploads directories. Hence, there's still a need for the newly-built, current version of the standalone 'Spot2Root' file permissions changer.....which can be found here:-

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1048371#1048371

See how y'all get on with it.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Fri 07 Feb 2020, 07:32    Post subject:  

New release of Chrome-portable - 80.0.3987.87

I'm pleased to announce version 80 of Google_Chrome-portable. NetFlix et al are all working perfectly. Thanks, as ever, to battleshooter for her help with the internal 'lib' directory a couple of years ago.....and to seaside for inspiration with making WideVine behave itself again.

--------------------------------------------------------

Changes, fixes, etc, as detailed here at the Chrome releases blog.

A total of 56 security issues have been addressed, with 10 of those rated as 'High' risk.

--------------------------------------------------------

Download the tarball here:-https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnqGX5Wq1rx0K9dbaumKfejDhbys5wdK/view?usp=sharing

Checksums

MD5:- 21cce4a22b89e438e76b2982f8df966a

Sha256:- 3d39a767e3d25be510fc149f5de757447885e9b5c160ca62b7689a4e26e8711a

D/l; unzip; locate wherever you like. Click to open, click 'LAUNCH' to start. Simples! Very Happy

-------------------------------------------------------

Additional credits must go to everyone who's helped out with these 'Puppy' Chrome builds over the last few years. Y'all know who you are.

Enjoy!


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES


Last edited by Mike Walsh on Tue 18 Feb 2020, 08:56; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 2084
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Fri 07 Feb 2020, 08:08    Post subject:  

What are the requirements to run this? I get an "Exec format error" when I try in Slacko 5.6.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 6397
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Fri 07 Feb 2020, 10:06    Post subject:  

MochiMoppel wrote:
What are the requirements to run this? I get an "Exec format error" when I try in Slacko 5.6.


Mochi:-

It's 64-bit, I'm afraid. Hence the 'Exec' format error...

I guess I ought to add that tidbit of information to the thread title.

You may not be aware, but my old desktop tower 'died' just after Xmas, so.....for the first time ever in my computing 'career', I've actually treated myself to some brand-new hardware. This being the case, and the older Puppies refusing to recognise the UEFI boot stuff - they keep asking for something VGA-related in the MBR BIOS? (which this doesn't have, apparently) - it means that my own 'perfect' Slacko 5.6.0 won't run on here. Grrr...!

--------------------------------

What with the Chrome thread being mostly frequented by long-term users - like myself - it's a case of everybody involved being 'in the know' with regard to when Chrome went 64-bit only. Which was something like nearly 4 years ago now..... I'm afraid I'd got so used to the fact of it, I kind of assumed that we all knew by now. Embarassed

I'll edit the title, Mochi. It'll save folks making mistakes like this in future.

(You're pretty limited to the versions of Chromium-based browsers that you can run in 560. Essentially, you're looking at either the last 32-bit version of Chrome itself - v48.....and Chrome 80 has just been released, of course - or v58 of the Iron browser, which is a perfect Chrome 'clone', and which I used myself for quite a while.)

Both are still fully functional, as long as you don't want to connect to the 'Big Brother' ecosphere. Support for either was dropped ages ago at Google's end.....and that's mainly why I started using the 64-bit Puppies. 32-bit's days are somewhat limited from now on, with regard to 'up-to-date' apps, etc.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
gjuhasz


Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 422

PostPosted: Sun 09 Feb 2020, 19:28    Post subject: WebGL support is back in Chrome 80  

Mike Walsh wrote:
as long as you don't want to connect to the 'Big Brother' ecosphere.


WebGL support returned in Chrome 80 version. I do hope that Iron and the other Chromium-based browsers will be updated (from Chromium 78 to 80) soon.

See http://madebyevan.com/webgl-water/

Have fun!

Regards,

gjuhasz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
TiredPup


Joined: 16 Jun 2019
Posts: 75
Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat 15 Feb 2020, 13:52    Post subject:  

Thank your for this.

I am using this portable version of google chrome. It runs quite well on my box in Bionicpup64.

The only issue that I have encountered so far is that Chrome will not download any files.

"Failed Insufficient Permissions"

I rebooted to a pristine save file. Setup up as usual and launched Google-Chrome portable. I successfully downloaded a file to spot/downloads.

The only real difference between the 2 save files is that I have the spot to root permissions changer installed on the original save file.

I am not sure what to make of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 3 [43 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3 Next
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.7007s ][ Queries: 12 (0.6067s) ][ GZIP on ]