No More Support For Chrome/chromium On Rhel6

https://plus.google.com/u/0/100132233764003563318/posts/Y1s6T44Soby

Not 100% this is true but the problem apparently is that rhel6 uses an old version of gtk2.

If this is true, then it affects my school and my students. I like Google-chrome and it works very well with google services. I was planning on using C6 for a long time. Does anyone know of a repo that intends to keep Chromium working for C6?

  1. #1 by SilverTip257 on February 12th, 2013 - 11:31 am

    No clue here. I don’t run X on any of my production systems. And CentOS isn’t my desktop distro.

    The Fedora Project [0] may maintain Chromium builds for EL6. I know that in the past they’ve maintained Chromium builds for Fedora. It actually seems like someone [1] might be gearing up to do just that for EL6.

    Report back if you give that repo a try as others have indicated on the
    “firefox problem” thread that they use Chrom(e|ium) on CentOS 6.

    [0] http://repos.fedorapeople.org/
    [1] http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/leigh123linux/chromium-stable/

  2. #2 by Robert Arkiletian on February 12th, 2013 - 11:43 am

    Update, I just read the issue is also C++11 and gcc 4.6. Apparently, Chromium devs prefer to use the newer c++ standard and that breaks the toolchain on older distros. I think C6 uses gcc 4.4.6.

    Also rumor is Google and Red Hat are now talking about this issue. I
    hope a solution can be found.

  3. #3 by Nux! on February 12th, 2013 - 11:48 am

    When you make this kind of plans it’s always good to reply on as few
    3rd party as you can, especially for core components such as the browser. I tried building Chromium in the past for EL6 and I gave up as it was too difficult for me. Of course someone else might succeed in doing so, but even in that case, for how long can he/she keep up with backporting updates and so on?

    If you plan long term stuff go with the RH provided browser. I’d look into switching back to Firefox.

  4. #4 by Gé Weijers on February 12th, 2013 - 12:20 pm

    It would not be ‘backporting’ if you’d set up a build environment that uses a newer GCC and GTK2 library, and statically link against the newer GTK2. That’s a bit of a pain for release engineering, but it’s not rocket science. RHEL6/C6 (and Ubuntu 10.04) desktops are probably a tiny fraction of Google’s user base, so they just may not want to expend the effort.

    Alternatively, one could do something tricky like make a special build of newer GTK2 libraries built with the newer GCC, and make Chrome load them in stead of the regular ones.


  5. #5 by Robert Arkiletian on February 12th, 2013 - 12:35 pm

    Just discovered that RH has provided a new developer toolchain a few weeks ago. GCC 4.7.2.

    http://red.ht/Uo9wej

    But it requires a developer subscription. Wondering if this might help the situation.

  6. #6 by Tru Huynh on February 12th, 2013 - 1:03 pm

  7. #7 by John R on February 12th, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    if Chrome starts using functionality from a newer Gtk, it will be very challenging to maintain a back port.

  8. #8 by Dennis Jacobfeuerborn on February 12th, 2013 - 3:56 pm

    Also notice that the builds in that repo are from May 2011. Looks abandoned to me.

    Regards,
    Dennis

  9. #9 by Johnny Hughes on February 12th, 2013 - 4:36 pm

    Well, there are hobby users and there are real users. Google SHOULD
    understand the difference.

    Most businesses and large user deployments of a Linux desktop would be using things like CentOS, RHEL, SLES, Ubuntu LTS and not the bleeding edge distros with all the new versions of GTK.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are a large number of people using the 6 month distros too … BUT … most enterprises I know of that use Linux on the desktop are not among them.

    Mozilla did figure that out and release their ESR version for these people because they understand that they do make up a significant portion of the people who actually get work done on Linux. Hopefully RH
    will be able to convince them to continue to provide some kind of support.

  10. #10 by SilverTip257 on February 12th, 2013 - 6:44 pm

    Oh rats … I totally missed looking at the time stamp :-/
    Likely abandoned as you said.

  11. #11 by Robert Arkiletian on March 27th, 2013 - 7:33 pm

    I’m bumping this thread in hopes some Googe/Chromium devs will realize that GCC 4.7.2 is available for RHEL6. Please continue supporting google-chrome for rhel/CentOS 6. Now that version 26 is stable we get a warning message every time chrome is launched. “Google Chrome has stopped updating …”

  12. #12 by Robert Arkiletian on April 15th, 2013 - 1:26 am

    Is there any chance CentOS might add Chromium to extras repo? See below.

    Post from Hirakendu:
    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/chromium-discuss/I_ZFDJqdiyA

    ———–
    “I have put up some scripts for building current Chromium versions (26
    and 27) on EL 6 at

    https://github.com/hirakendu/chromium_el_builder

    . See the readme for details. Due to the large file size, the current RPM chromium-26.0.1410.63-192696.x86_64.rpm, built on CentOS 6.4, can be obtained by downloading the project archive.Please note that this is only for the time being and I do not intend to actively maintain it, but I hope it may help others. A couple of patches may be merged as well.

    Aside, thanks to Paweł for maintaining the excellent chromium ebuilds for Gentoo Linux (which I have been happily using for several years)
    that helped clarify some of the build steps, in addition to the official build instructions at chromium.org.”
    ————

    Robert Arkiletian Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver, Canada

  13. #13 by Robert Arkiletian on April 10th, 2013 - 12:26 pm

    Update:
    With Opera dropping Presto engine and following/forking Chrome and with Chromium dropping support for CentOS that just leaves us with only one main browser: Firefox ESR.

    I commented asking for support past version 26. Got a reply,

    “Note that these systems were never officially supported. I’d recommend CentOS to make its own Chromium package.”
    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/chromium-discuss

    Also filed a feature request that got merged into the Debian 6 same request.
    ” Please file a new bug for CentOS, since this bug is about Debian. I
    have a feeling we won’t be able to support it though.”
    https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id“4389

  14. #14 by Johnny Hughes on April 15th, 2013 - 5:48 pm

    I will be glad to build it, *IF* I can reproduce what the script does inside an SRPM (looks like I should be able to). One of our rules is an SRPM for everything we release.

    The problem is, if he is not going to support it later, his gcc patches may not keep working on newer code and we only gain a couple of builds and run out of support.

    Since I personally use chrome as my browser (and obviously CentOS-6.4 as my OS :D) … and want to continue to do so … I will look at this soon.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  15. #15 by Robert Arkiletian on May 2nd, 2013 - 10:50 pm

    Johnny,

    there is someone here

    https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=227320

    who is willing and able to help.

    CentOS mailing list CentOS@CentOS.org http://lists.CentOS.org/mailman/listinfo/CentOS

  16. #16 by Johnny Hughes on June 23rd, 2013 - 9:25 pm

    Correct … the issue is that the new libpdf.so requires the same
    (newer) glibc as the chrome version … and therefore it will not work. You can use the standard Adobe Acrobat plugin for viewing PDFs.

  17. #17 by Fernando Cassia on June 23rd, 2013 - 10:23 pm

    Welcome to the brave new World where Google is the new Microsoft.

    Do you think if they cared about user feedback they would have left the
    “New GMail”
    redesign in place after the tons of negative feedback?.

    http://news.techeye.net/software/google-to-angry-gmail-users-we-know-better

    http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/4/24/googles-cloud-throws-a-thunderbolt-to-gmail-users.aspx

    They dont care. They “know better”. They re doing software and services for the uneducated masses, they dont care what you and I -or any other ‘power user’- thinks. Google’s idea is that ideally we should run Android or Chrome OS, not CentOS…

    But the real question is: why should we freak out if a piece of Google software becomes no longer available? The World wont end, specially when there are capable open alternatives like Mozilla s Firefox. Think “Picasa for Linux” (wine)

    In fact, I think it’s positive if we give Google LESS influence than what they already have, not more.

    FC


    During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
    - George Orwell

  18. #18 by Johnny Hughes on June 7th, 2013 - 10:27 pm

    OK guys,

    Here is the test version of Chromium version 28 for CentOS-6 (the current beta release).

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

    You can copy the repo file from there into /etc/yum.repo.d/ and then issue the command:

    yum install chromium

    The package is signed by the CentOS-6-Testing key.

    Here is the git repo where the build script (source) and instructions are located:

    https://github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder

    If you already have chrome installed, you will want to remove it and remove the yum repo for chrome as it will get no more updates.

    We can not distribute the pepperflash or libpdf viewer from Google Chrome due to licensing restrictions, but you can download these two scripts from the github repo and run them either as root or as a user with sudo access to install those two libraries:

    chrome_libpdf_copy.sh:
    https://raw.github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder/master/chrome_libpdf_copy.sh

    chrome_pepperflash_copy.sh:
    https://raw.github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder/master/chrome_pepperflash_copy.sh

    Lets get this tested and vetted and we can maybe move it to CentOS
    Extras when Chome is upgraded to the 28 version in production.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  19. #19 by Kapetanakis Giannis on June 23rd, 2013 - 4:59 am

    > Chrome due to licensing restrictions, but you can download these two
    > scripts from the github repo and run them either as root or as a
    > user with sudo access to install those two libraries:
    >
    > chrome_libpdf_copy.sh:
    >
    https://raw.github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder/master/chrome_libpdf_copy.sh
    >
    >
    >
    chrome_pepperflash_copy.sh:
    https://raw.github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder/master/chrome_pepperflash_copy.sh
    >
    >
    >
    Lets get this tested and vetted and we can maybe move it to CentOS
    >
    > Thanks, Johnny Hughes

    Hi, Just for the record. The script in

    https://raw.github.com/hughesjr/chromium_el_builder/master/chrome_libpdf_copy.sh

    downloads the latest stable of google-chrome which is
    28.0.1500.52-207119 atm. The libpdf.so which is included is not working (at least on i386).

    # ldd libpdf.so
    ./libpdf.so: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15′ not found
    (required by ./libpdf.so)

    When you try to open pdf file you get “Could not load Chrome PDF Viewer”

    The libpdf.so version from the following works:
    google-chrome-stable-27.0.1453.110-202711.i386

    I’ve managed to download it from http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/myrpms/google/

    regards,

    Giannis

  20. #20 by Scott Robbins on June 7th, 2013 - 11:06 pm

    Followed all these instructions and it went without incident. The binary is /opt/chromium/chrome. Everything seems to be working well–I copied my
    $HOME/.config/google-chromium/Defaults to the newly created
    $HOME/.config/chromium directory which saved all my settings.

    It also seems to open faster than google-chrome.
    Thank you for your efforts.

  21. #21 by Rob Kampen on June 7th, 2013 - 11:26 pm

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    ————–050404010705080406070904
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary=”————090809090508060006060502″

    ————–090809090508060006060502
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Thanks Johnny – all the instructions work as advertised – appreciated. I
    will use this as my browser for the next while and report any issues. Rob

    ————–090809090508060006060502

  22. #22 by Jake Shipton on June 9th, 2013 - 1:09 am

    Thanks Johnny! I’m not a fan of chrome myself however I have to to keep it around for development projects for QA/Testing purposes. So having a handy RPM is always helpful :-).

    I’ll post back if I hit any bugs with the package :-).

    Thanks, Jake Shipton (JakeMS)
    GPG Key: 0xE3C31D8F
    GPG Fingerprint: 7515 CC63 19BD 06F9 400A DE8A 1D0B A5CF E3C3 1D8F

  23. #23 by Robert Arkiletian on June 10th, 2013 - 10:49 am

    Thanks Johnny,

    Your work is much appreciated.

    CentOS mailing list CentOS@CentOS.org http://lists.CentOS.org/mailman/listinfo/CentOS

  24. #24 by SilverTip257 on June 13th, 2013 - 6:16 pm

    Johnny,

    Thanks for packaging Chromium for CentOS 6. I’ll second Scott’s comment and say the install went through without any snafus!
    It’s working well on my system.

  25. #25 by Phelps, Matt on June 26th, 2013 - 7:52 am

    Any idea when this might get added to the Extras repository?

    Also, does anyone know where we could download the Google RPM for the last version to work on CentOS6 (version 27)?


    Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard – Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu

  26. #26 by Johnny Hughes on June 26th, 2013 - 8:48 am

    With the very real possibility that new code could be written (for the newer glibc/gcc that they are now targeting) that will actually not compile on the older setup, I am not sure we are comfortable actually moving this directly into extras.

    I would say that we need several cycles and new versions for testing
    (maybe at the 31.x tree cycle) before we actually know this is going to continue to work.

    WRT PDFs and flash, I would not use the older versions but instead try to make adobereader and adobeflash if they fail … otherwise you will not get security updates on these.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

(will not be published)
Subscribe to comments feed