@maxpayne3 Well if you want the details of my reasoning:
Linux is the kernel, yes, that doesn't matter; it's the potential for package-specific hacks that only concern itself with the userspace of Debian-derivatives that I'm concerned about. I don't want to maintain patches for those as a matter of principle, no matter how small, and even if there's none needed now, those packages are meant for Debian derivatives, meaning that upstream is free to break compat with us at any time for they don't officially support running the Debian package in a non-Debian system, and they very explicitly ship a tarball for non-Debian systems. Does this mean they'll add such hacks that break .deb's contents for Arch? Unlikely, but I'd rather stick to reasonable expectations for upstream: *.deb meant for Debian-based distros, Tarball is generic.
But even more important to me is the first thing I mentioned: I don't want to make a big packaging change for so small a gain, it's not worth my time. If your network constraints means that those 33MB are a big difference for you, I'd suggest forking the Google Chrome AUR and adapting it for Brave's deb release, and you can even publish it as a brave-deb
AUR package for other people who share the same needs.
Hope that makes sense, sorry I didn't explain myself earlier. Cheers.
Pinned Comments
alerque commented on 2021-11-27 03:11 (UTC)
@ant0n et all, lets keep the comments here about packaging issues, general Brave usage issues should go in another forum to not clutter up this comment space. I'm deleting comments that have no relation to packaging. Grey areas like crashes that could be blamed on Arch can stay until proven otherwise, but things like how to configure Brave to handle popups or site X or whatever just don't belong here. Thanks for understanding.