SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Mailing list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:28:59 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
Jos Vos <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Adding "Chromium"
From:
Jos Vos <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Comments:
To: Adam Bishop <[log in to unmask]> cc: Larry Linder <[log in to unmask]>, "<[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines) 
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:32:32AM +0000, Adam Bishop wrote:

> Google also supply RPM's directly. See
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/?hl=en&platform=linux
> 
> IIRC Chrome statically links a lot of its dependancies, so there's a
> strong chance that the Fedora/OpenSUSE build will just work.

Yes, but he asked explicitly for Chromium and besides that, the Google
Chrome RPM's are very bad from a packaging point of view.

I'm giving talks about RPM packaging and I also have a talk called
"Surviving the RPM Package and Repository Jungle".  In that talk
I use the Google Chrome RPM as an example of a very bad package.

For example, ut has a nearly 1000 lines post-install script, it
lacks 73 out of 93 dependencies, it installs 20 unpackaged files, etc.

-- 
--    Jos Vos <[log in to unmask]>
--    X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
--    Amsterdam, The Netherlands        |     Fax: +31 20 6948204

ATOM RSS1 RSS2