Chromium Browser For C6

Home » CentOS » Chromium Browser For C6
CentOS 58 Comments

I found this bug fix report

http://lwn.net/Articles/616130/

I thought we were not able to get Chromium for C6. Apparently it looks like the work has been already done.

Is it possible we (hi Johnny) can get this package into C6? This would be a wonderful addition to CentOS 6. Please and thank you.

58 thoughts on - Chromium Browser For C6

  • They (Red Hat) do not release the Supplemental packages, usually because they can’t. (IE, Sun/Oracle Java, Flash, etc.)

    This is usually because the sources are not completely open or there is a license issue for distribution or a payment required for support, etc.

    Red Hat enters into an agreement with said vendors (as required) to be able to distribute said packages only to paying customers.

    But, I’ll see what I can find out.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • (Sorry for the top post earlier)

    Found this post on Oct. 17th 2014 at https://access.redhat.com/discussions/650963:

    Chris Scarff:

    As of RHEL 6.6 (October 2014) it’s now included with rhel-6-workstation-supplementary-rpms or rhel-6-server-supplementary-rpms

    sudo yum install chromium-browser

    – Results:

    Installing:
    chromium-browser x86_64 38.0.2125.101-2.el6_6
    rhel-6-workstation-supplementary-rpms 48 M
    Installing for dependencies:
    audit-libs-python x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 62 k libcgroup x86_64 0.40.rc1-15.el6_6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 129 k libsemanage-python x86_64 2.0.43-4.2.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 81 k policycoreutils-python x86_64 2.0.83-19.47.el6_6.1 rhel-6-workstation-rpms
    346 k setools-libs x86_64 3.3.7-4.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 400 k setools-libs-python x86_64 3.3.7-4.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 222 k Updating for dependencies:
    audit x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 208 k audit-libs i686 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 72 k audit-libs x86_64 2.3.7-5.el6 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 71 k policycoreutils x86_64 2.0.83-19.47.el6_6.1 rhel-6-workstation-rpms 680 k
    October 17 2014 at 4:58 PM
    <https://access.redhat.com/discussions/650963#comment-836943>

  • 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… ?

  • I don’t know, and that’s the point! Personally, I’d be OK with using it, but since my work is audited by the Federal Gum’mint, I don’t know how they’d feel about it. :)

  • 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 06.11.2014 um 23:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes :

    Insight into the process would help to roll it. Speak, are the spec files to build under a GPL-similar force?

    The above mentioned version are build and packaged in two different steps. It could be done smarter but that is just cosmetic.

  • 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

  • This is a company that exists for getting profit. What do you suggest we offer them in exchange?

    Valeri

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  • Numbers of users. I assume that if you log in to your account with chromium they’ll get whatever they want without additional help (like at least being able to tie your account to an IP/location and your google searches). On the other hand they are probably right that if you are using a system as a desktop you should just upgrade it to CentOS 7 where their packaged version ‘just works’. In fact I’m posting with it now.

  • OK new version posted.

    This uses the CentOS-6 testing key and is available here:

    http://people.CentOS.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/

    The repo file is here:

    http://people.CentOS.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/chromium-el6.repo

    This version is now called chromium-browser and not chromium, so if you have the older version, you will need to:

    yum remove chromium

    then

    yum install chromium-browser

    Later updates should happen with yum update and the name chromium-browser

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • Thank you so much Johnny. You’re the man! My students and I really appreciate your work.

    cheers

  • I installed from the repo given here a month ago and it works fine. I
    something wrong with this google repo? Should I remove and reinstall from the new one given here on this list?

    Steve

  • I am sure that is for CentOS-7 … that does not work for CentOS-6.

    The Google repo is fine for CentOS-7.

  • The only way that would work for C6 is if the script from Richard Lloyd, or similar, is used to segregate newer libraries from f15 and f17 into e.g. /opt/google/chrome/lib so versions of Chrome newer than v27 will install and run on C6, but other programs won’t use those libraries.

    C7 uses those newer libraries by default, so such an installation script isn’t needed to make Chrome work on C7. For now, anyway. :)

    Chromium (see subject line) is the open source version of Chrome, of course.

  • The proper way to fix this for C6 is to backport those libraries to C6
    in a 3rd-party repository. This should be doable without conflicting with the existing older libs in C6.

    At this point Chrome should be install-able from their own repo without having to pull any further stunts.

    Peter

  • Thanks for this Johnny. I’m seeing some strange input related issues with it however:

    1. It doesn’t detect anything typed on the keypad when NumLock is enabled.
    2. It’s not detecting the return key ie. entering text in a search field and hitting return results in nothing whereas before it would invoke the search.

    I’d be happy to provide more information if required.

    Thanks, Cian

  • Am 15.11.2014 um 17:55 schrieb Johnny Hughes :

    Thanks!

    I noticed that before chromium-browser-38 (e.g. chromium-31), the browser was able to find the “external” flash plugin (/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/…).

    I didn’t have followed the development but I presume that “such” plugins are not supported anymore, right?

  • I (we, the CentOS Project) can not distribute flash .. but this currently works (must do as the root user):

    1. Exit any running chromium browsers.

    2. Make and change to a temporary working directory … I use /tmp/chrome/

    mkdir /tmp/chrome/

    cd /tmp/chrome/

    3. Get the latest Google Chrome rpm:

    wget https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

    (that is all one line, substitute i386 for x86_64 if requried)

    4. extract the RPM to the temp directory:

    rpm2cpio google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm | cpio -idv

    (that is also one line)

    5. Copy the PepperFlash directory to the install location:

    cp -a opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/ /opt/chromium-browser/

    (also all one line)

    6. Test that flash is working by opening chrome and going here:

    http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

    7. If everything is working, delete the temp directory:

    rm -rf /tmp/chrome/

    8. You must redo this after every update of the Chromium RPM to ensure you have the latest flash.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • Well, Red Hat had to take it out of their build. And in this case the issue is a combination problem with Adobe and Google. Google has permission to build and distribute flash as pepperflash in Chrome.

    Red Hat asked and was told no for that combination in chromium.

    Adobe’s actual flash player no longer works on chromium .. only pepperflash, built by Google.

    And Google does not allow chromium builders to distribute that (well they (Google) are only allowed to distribute it by Adobe).

    So, the thing I would need to get permission to distribute is the pepperflash.so which is built by Google, which I can not distribute.

    So, this is much less a problem of no source code … it is that I can’t build it, Adobe’s no longer works, and no one but Google can distribute pepperflash.so legally in the US.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=distribution_form&pv=fp

    Johnny,

    Your build of the later chromiums works great on CO 6.6 (not withstanding the no built in flash support). What would it take to get these into a more timely release schedule? And into a more “standard” repository (e.g. EPEL)?
    Or, do you have relatively cookbookish build instructions? (Or, has someone already done this?)

    Thanks again for what you’ve done.

    Matt

    called shumway.

  • If I could build it, I would. At the present time, i can not build it as the source is not on http://ftp.redhat.com or git.CentOS.org.

    Red Hat does not have permission for it to be built anywhere besides their supplemental channel for RHEL6, and I have asked Red Hat legal and they are trying to get permission from Google to release it in CentOS.

    I am sorry, but I can’t build and release it at this time. I may not be able to do so, even though I really, really do want to release it.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • wait,… I thought Chromium was “open source”… you need a license to distribute it? (note that I haven’t researched which license it uses…)

  • Red Hat has permission to distribute, to paying customers, pieces of it that are not open source. I need to get permission to strip parts of that out and distribute the rest.

    I have asked for permission and am waiting on the answers of:

    1. Can do that (take out some pieces and distribute)

    2. If I can do that, are the pieces I took out good enough or do I need to make more changes.

    I want to make this happen and I am trying to do so. However, I have no idea what the outcome will be.

    One thing is for sure, people are watching me very closely on this .. therefore I must do it exactly the way they want me to.

  • Johnny,

    Recently on http://ftp.redhat.com a src rpm for chromium-browser appeared. It has since disappeared. It was located in 6Workstation, 6Client and
    6Server.

    Does this have anything to do with your request for a chromium-browser src.rpm ?

  • Right people to ask would probably be RedHat folks ;-) In any event, why would that matter?! No, this is a rhetoric question.

    Valeri

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  • its been withdrawn upstream.

    given the level of interest in getting this built – can we not get enough attention to the issues and just do a build without needing to rely on what redhat is doing internally ?

  • The motion being seconded, I now move the question. (Sorry, Roberts Rules of Order are a fascination of mine.)

  • Am 22.02.2015 um 07:20 schrieb Robert Arkiletian :

    as EPEL is Fedora SIG, the above idea was on the organizational layer and less on the technical one.

  • After 7.1 is released, I will try again to get permission to do this. I
    am not giving up hope, just working with legal issues is quite a PITA. But, I personally work try to move to EL7 for machines needing chrome, as the one directly from google currently works.

  • What is it that is actually missing in CentOS6? Would it be stuff that is already available in the devtoolset SCL’s – or would build under that? If that would work, why fight with other ways of doing it?

  • Thanks. We are proceeding along those lines, but these things take time in an enterprise environment :)