Page 11 of 29
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 00:39
by unicorn316386
Mike Walsh wrote:Evening all.
You know, the more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.
peebee's been making this disclaimer for quite some time (at least as far back as 38 ).....about the more recent Chromium's not working in the older Pups. Fair comment. Right, then; explain this to me, if you will:-
I run Slacko 570,
and X-Slacko 2.3.2 (570 + XFCE), OK? Granted, I'm not talking here about Chromium, but Chrome (and we all know that Chrome is simply the stable version of Chromium plus Google's proprietary bit's'n'bobs, yes?)
So how come I'm running OscarTalk's version of Chrome 47.0.2526.106 (plus the obligatory libgconf2 and libgnomekeyring to get them to work) with
absolutely no problems at all?
Bit of a head-scratcher, that one. I ain't losing any sleep over it.....but it rather contradicts peebee's statement, doesn't it? Don't ask me
why I prefer Chrome (I just do).....but I
do use AlienBob's Chromium PepperFlash (thanks again for the link, peebee!), extract the libpepflashplayer.so module from it, and use it in Chrome. Works fine.
Or
are there bigger differences between Chrome and Chromium than I'm aware of? Is this anything to do with the fact that peebee's versions of Chromium are Slackware-compiled and -compatible?
Mike.
Today when I compiled Dosbox for Slacko 6.3, the binary didn't work in Slacko 5.7 (/lib/libc.so.6: version 'GLIBC_2.17' not found (required by ./dosbox)), but when I compiled Dosbox for Slacko 5.7, it also worked in Slacko 6.3. On top of that, the one compiled for Slacko 5.7 was smaller in size (2585796 vs. 2634916 bytes), so I wonder what the benefit of compiling for a newer version is? Maybe the one compiled for 6.3 will run faster on 6.3? Maybe something will work better because it was compiled with a more recent gcc version? I didn't notice a difference, and also wonder if it's really worth it compiling for newer also.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 00:43
by Semme
Backwards/forwards compatible is what you're dealing with.
Newer is more likely to run older than older is to run newer. Make sense?
Sure! Sure it does. Older isn't geared towards knowing about updated library routines.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 00:49
by Mike Walsh
Hey there, unicorn.
Search me! I know I gave 6.3 a try a while back.....and hardly
anything in it seemed to work properly. Admittedly, that was fairly soon after release.....but judging by the activity on the Slacko 6.3.0 thread, Micko appears to have his hands full sorting problems out left. right & centre.
Of course, it could simply be the age of my elderly hardware. One's 11 yrs old, the other's 14..!
Rather him than me. For-and-aft cross-compatibility is a complete mystery to me. It could be one of the many reasons why I'm not a developer!
I don't think I've quite the temperament for it.....
Mike.
Re: sfs - convert into pet and for tahrpup64
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 01:01
by gcmartin
Erroneous post.
@PeeBee, check you PM.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 01:14
by rey120foto
forgive me if something damaged
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 01:41
by Semme
Hey Rey, does it matter whether it's Chromium or Chrome?
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 01:51
by rey120foto
Semme wrote:Hey Rey, does it matter whether it's Chromium or Chrome?
I was never really mattered to me. the issue is not that. I stated ever so. ue my problem is I can not stand that I have the version of Mozilla and unfortunately terrible for us in linux flash support. so I was trying to set up my puppy with something that does not give me problema.recuerdo I'm new puppy, just wanted to leave my browser running. differences between versions. I do not care. rather I think that is a very heavy chrome fret but unfortunately we have to keep using.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 01:53
by rey120foto
excuse my English is very bad. hehe greetings.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 02:02
by Semme
Rey, dwnld
this build, then rt-clk and hit sfs_load. Does she run?
You might give the first file
here a shot too.
Same deal >> rt-clk, sfs_load.
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 04:20
by OscarTalks
@ Mike Walsh
I believe it depends on the environments in which these different Chromium derivatives are compiled. They take the Chromium source code and can build it as Chromium. This is the case with peebee's versions but these are built against a later glibc so will only work in Tahr or Slackware 14.1
Google's branded Chrome is still compiled against an earlier glibc so will even work in Wheezy which has glibc 2.13
Same applies to SlimJet, Chromium source code with some good modifications by the developer, earlier build environment so works in Wheezy or Precise or Slacko 5.7 if you do a few tweaks. Slimjet does not auto-update the browser but DOES auto-update the Pepper Flash plugin by the way, so security fixes are applied.
@ rey120foto
I suggest you try the SlimJet in the link which Semme gave you. That will work in Slacko 5.7
The Chrome should also work but you will need libgconf2 in Slacko 5.7
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 07:21
by peebee
Mike Walsh wrote:......So how come I'm running OscarTalk's version of Chrome 47.0.2526.106 (plus the obligatory libgconf2 and libgnomekeyring to get them to work) with absolutely no problems at all?......
Mike.
OscarTalks has answered this very succinctly above.
Cheers
peebee
Posted: Wed 27 Jan 2016, 13:22
by Mike Walsh
Afternoon, everyone.
@OscarTalks, peebee:-
Ah;
that would explain it, then. I'm surprised Google are still compiling against the earlier glibc.....but I'm certainly not complaining. BTW, Oscar, I'm running your 7.0.1.0 compile of Slimjet alongside Chrome. Brilliant browser. What you've just said also explains why PepperFlash was bang up to date when I checked two days ago. AlienBob's only just released the Chromium version of his extracted PepperFlash, which is the one I use.....and according to the Adobe site, 286 has been out for a couple of weeks now. I
did wonder how come it was already up-to-date, while I was still waiting for Bob to 'do his thing'. That's neat. Nice one!
Appreciate the clarification. Cheers!
Mike.
Security update to pepperflash-20.0.0.306
Posted: Fri 12 Feb 2016, 10:47
by peebee
Chromium_48.0.2564.109 + pepperflash_20.0.0.306
Posted: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 09:20
by peebee
Posted: Fri 04 Mar 2016, 07:16
by peebee
Warning from Alien-Bob.....
new Chromium sources were just released, addressing several vulnerabilities. By the way, this new 49.0.2623.75 release is the first where Google is only releasing 64-bit binaries for Linux, so I am afraid that at some point the 32-bit plugins I used to extract from the Chrome binaries (pepperflash and widevine plugins) will stop working for the 32-bit chromium packages which I will of course keep compiling for you. The most recent versions of these binary-only plugins remain in my repository until they break.
Posted: Fri 04 Mar 2016, 07:53
by gcmartin
Actually, after reviewing Google's position, I have to agree with them. 64bit is where the world is. Manufacturing left 32bit over a decade ago. PCs today are much more efficient and sip power less. RasPi is now 64bit. SmartPhones and smartTablet, too. SmartCars new controllers (CPUs) are 64bit. ...
Google never said that 32bit will stop working. They just wont continue to devote resources to it while they concentrate their resources to what is being built by hardware manufacturers across the world.
Same is true with PUPs built since I started, here, when PUPs were only 32bit. They continue to work, today. Old PUPs still work on old PCs and they work as well today as they did decade ago.
I do understand that in spite of their focus, 32bit Chrome will continue to work. Same as WinXP. (I am neither a Google defender nor a Microsoft defender)
Chromium_49.0.2623.112 + pepperflash_21.0.0.213
Posted: Mon 07 Mar 2016, 09:38
by peebee
UPDATED 09-apr-2016
THIS VERSION WILL ONLY WORK ON "MODERN" PUPPIES - e.g. LxPup, LxPupTahr, Slacko6, TahrPup6, X-tahr, X-Slacko
and then only on versions with kernels newer than 3.14 unless you apply the patch here which does affect sandboxing
32bit sfs:
chromium_49.0.2623.112+pepper_21.0.0.213_lx.sfs
64bit sfs:
chromium64_49.0.2623.112+pepper_21.0.0.213_lx.sfs
Some
.pet versions are available or use the converter.
Caveats and constraints as
detailed above
If you need a .pet instead of a .sfs or you want the 64-bit .sfs to run on tahrpup64 then use
this converter.
To use services, such as Netflix, with protected content, you probably need to add the widevine plugin to Chromium (see
testing thread). Links to the versions compatible with the above versions of Chromium are below. Just download the .txz file and then click on the downloaded file to install it.
32-bit widevine plugin
64-bit widevine plugin
32-bit chromium_49.0.2623.75+pepper_21.0.0.182
Posted: Wed 16 Mar 2016, 21:46
by peebee
Mike Walsh is a star!
He has discovered how to obtain the latest pepperflash 32-bit -
details here.
32-bit chromium_49.0.2623.75+pepper_21.0.0.182_lx.sfs has been uploaded - see above.
Re: 32-bit chromium_49.0.2623.75+pepper_21.0.0.182
Posted: Thu 17 Mar 2016, 00:20
by Mike Walsh
peebee wrote:Mike Walsh is a star!
He has discovered how to obtain the latest pepperflash 32-bit -
details here.
32-bit chromium_49.0.2623.75+pepper_21.0.0.182_lx.sfs has been uploaded - see above.
Aw, shucks... (as our American cousins would say). War'nt nuthin'!
It's silly, really; because the means for doing this appear to already exist
within the Linux release of Chrome. It just isn't fully implemented, the way it is in the Windows version. (Wonder why
that is, hmm..?)
Actually, we may be able to mechanise this into a script ( for Chrome, at any rate). Geoffrey's going to try and have a look into this for me, as and when time permits. I suspect for Chromium it may have to remain a 'manual edit', but it's easy enough to do. Just follow the simple instructions as supplied with the tar.gz package (from here):-
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 336#894336
Anything to help out fellow 'Puppians'. But I
will be glad when it's finally given the 'heave-ho' in favour of full HTML5 web-wide support, I can tell you. It's a real PITA keeping on top of it....
The ultimate aim is to make it so that Puppy can offer
full Flash support, until web-wide consensus eventually
does kill it off... We shall see.
Watch this space.
Mike.
Chromium_49.0.2623.108 + pepperflash_21.0.0.197
Posted: Sun 27 Mar 2016, 15:52
by peebee
Chromium_49.0.2623.108 + pepperflash_21.0.0.197 is available - see above