Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Mick wrote: > > On my old i7 laptop it eats up all 4G of RAM and 4G of swap before it conks > out. So, I dropped the jobs to 3 and --load-average to 2, added a swapfile to > increase disk space and it now builds in around 13 hours. > > I have not used jumbo-build

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Friday, 19 January 2018 13:29:51 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:26 AM, victor romanchuk wrote: > > local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up > > build process.> > > setting that significantly speeds up emerge time (tried it twice; the > >

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:26 AM, victor romanchuk wrote: > local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up > build process. > > setting that significantly speeds up emerge time (tried it twice; the second > attempt had the flag set) > > $ qlop -gHv -d `date +%Y-%m-%d` c

[gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

just noticed new use flag in recent stable chromium ebuild: $ quse -D jumbo-build  local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up build process. setting that significantly speeds up emerge time (tried it twice; the second attempt had the flag set) $ qlop -gHv -d `date

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

2011/8/5 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella > 2011/8/5 Matthew Finkel : > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis > wrote: > >> > >> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium > >> I suppose this is why we se

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:14:37 +1000, Adam Carter wrote: > The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a > little inconvenience. There was no equivalent for chromium last time I > checked, and it still doesn't have a master password to protect saved > webform passwords Chromium

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

2011/8/5 Matthew Finkel : > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis wrote: >> >> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium >> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's >> not

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

on 08/05/2011 08:44 AM Mick wrote the following: > On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: >> The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a >> little inconvenience. > > By "little inconvenience" you mean that most webpages will not show up > properly? These days

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: > >> You've made an assumption there. > > > > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox > > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so > > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Adam Carter wrote: > >> You've made an assumption there. > > > > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox > > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so > > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure wi

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

>> You've made an assumption there. > > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it... The noscript firefox addon gives significant protecti

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

on 08/05/2011 07:23 AM Adam Carter wrote the following: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote: >> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium >> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrad

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > At least one of the "multiple vulnerabilities" bugs linked to a Chrome > update notice which didn't list any vulnerabilities. (Well, except a > Flash update, which I didn't dig into) > > > -- > :wq > > M Flash. Now there is a nice and se

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Adam Carter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote: >> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium >> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote: > I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium > I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's > not a small app to build). > Why is its

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis wrote: > I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium > I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's > not a small app to build). > Why is it

[gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's not a small app to build). Why is its code so, should I say prone to bugs, compared to other brow

Re: [gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 23:42, Andy Wilkinson wrote: > I have tried 490, and it has the same problem: html5test.com reports no > h264 support, and non-webm, html5 youtube videos don't work. > > I'll continue trying successive builds as they're posted... maybe 490 > doesn't have that commit yet? > Mayb

Re: [gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 08/17/2010 10:58 AM, Nganon wrote: > > > On 17 August 2010 19:49, Andy Wilkinson > wrote: > > Thanks for the info. That doesn't entirely answer my question, > though... shouldn't chromium's bundled ffmpeg have h264 support? > Google's youtube.com/html

Re: [gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 19:49, Andy Wilkinson wrote: > Thanks for the info. That doesn't entirely answer my question, though... > shouldn't chromium's bundled ffmpeg have h264 support? Google's > youtube.com/html5 page suggests that Chrome (and thus chromium?) supports > h264. Is this a licensing is

Re: [gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 08/17/2010 04:54 AM, Nganon wrote: > > > On 17 August 2010 04:26, Andy Wilkinson > wrote: > > I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 > no longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support > for h264 videos (test

Re: [gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 04:26, Andy Wilkinson wrote: > I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 no > longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support for h264 > videos (test any non-webm, html5 video at youtube; it will never load). > > I've tried doctoring the

[gentoo-user] >=www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 no longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support for h264 videos (test any non-webm, html5 video at youtube; it will never load). I've tried doctoring the ebuild to use the system-provided ffmpeg, which does not