Package Details: brave-bin 1:1.24.82-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/brave-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: brave-bin
Description: Web browser that blocks ads and trackers by default (binary release).
Upstream URL: https://brave.com/download
Keywords: brave browser
Licenses: BSD, MPL2, custom:chromium
Conflicts: brave
Provides: brave, brave-browser
Submitter: vorbote
Maintainer: mixedCase
Last Packager: mixedCase
Votes: 395
Popularity: 34.40
First Submitted: 2016-04-06 13:16
Last Updated: 2021-05-05 15:35

Dependencies (8)

Required by (2)

Sources (4)

Pinned Comments

mixedCase commented on 2019-03-11 13:52

=== PLEASE READ PLEASE READ BEFORE REPORTING OUT OF DATE ===

Before making your report, please note that the newer GitHub release you're looking at belongs to the "Release Channel" and --isn't marked as prerelease--.

I have a cron running that's checking every 30 minutes if there's a new release and sends me an email if so. If you see the release was tagged in the last couple of hours please give it some time before flagging.

Also please take into account a stable version may be "released" on GitHub but not marked as ready (read, NOT PRELEASE) for a long time.

Another handy tool to check latest OFFICIALLY MARKED AS STABLE version of Brave is to run:

curl https://brave-browser-downloads.s3.brave.com/latest/release.version

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Next › Last »

a821 commented on 2021-05-10 07:39

@zerophase the --reflink option was used to speed up the packaging phase by doing a lightweight copy of the package contents to $pkgdir. It had no effect whatsoever on brave-bin performance. See cp(1) manual.

I have had no issues with brave lately, but I do not use it that much.

zerophase commented on 2021-05-10 06:13

For anyone having issues with the browser loading the 1.25 brave-beta-bin browser fixes the problem. If we all of that issue it might be worth updating to the beta here anyways.

zerophase commented on 2021-05-10 05:46

Having issues with Brave refusing to load pages. Seems to have gotten worse with the latest update.

@mixedCase Could removing that reflink=auto flag break GNU releases? Can't we just add a flag or detection method for using a version of those lines with and without it? Isn't it pretty easy to detect if someone does not have cp? I think it's like 4 lines of a script.

Some of those optimizations definitely impact performance depending on how the code is written in certain use cases.

mixedCase commented on 2021-05-02 19:16

@Th30 I don't use Brave rewards, but I've seen people complaining about the same thing in the Brave subreddit. Seems like a cross-platform issue.

Th30 commented on 2021-05-02 06:07

I haven't had any 'brave rewards' ads in about two months. Is it the same for you?

mixedCase commented on 2021-04-30 21:08

@konicks Arch is a GNU system, GNU cp being part of the base package and therefore expected. And reflink=auto is a behavior that should be the default in coreutils to make use of CoW where possible.

But... honestly this is such a pointless optimization and you went through the trouble of asking so giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have a usecase for it, I went ahead and removed it.

Cheers.

konicks commented on 2021-04-29 10:43

@mixedCase sorry to bother but would you please remove the GNU only flag in the first cp command of the package function (--reflink=auto)? It's better to only use POSIX compliant flags in scripts and packages (man 1p command for posix man page of that command) and because of that flag the package doesn't build on systems with different userland coreutils (BSD, Plan9, BusyBox, ToyBox, UNIX v5, etc). Also, the flag is pretty weirdly placed and doesn't seem to serve a concrete role in significantly improving build speed or build quality, it's just kinda...there, and it means the package requires modifications on non GNU systems

I made a modified PKGBUILD file: https://pastebin.com/4zEfYsJW

Cheers, Nick

danh337 commented on 2021-04-19 20:13

What are the "rules" for votes? As in, who actually looks at them? Should we be voting for the source "brave" package instead? Thanks for your work on this!

mixedCase commented on 2021-03-29 00:37

@ThePierrezou I don't know of any place where Brave uploads signatures (if they even make one) for the files we build upon. Patches welcome if there's actually such a place.

ThePierrezou commented on 2021-03-28 21:35

Is it possible to get the PKGBUILD to verify the signature of the package please ? https://brave.com/signing-keys/