Package Details: brave-bin 1:1.67.123-1

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
Keywords: brave browser
Licenses: BSD, MPL2, custom:chromium
Conflicts: brave
Provides: brave, brave-browser
Submitter: toropisco
Maintainer: alerque (alosarjos)
Last Packager: alosarjos
Votes: 779
Popularity: 14.25
First Submitted: 2016-04-06 13:16 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-06-25 16:27 (UTC)

Dependencies (8)

Required by (9)

Sources (4)

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.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .. 57 Next › Last »

alerque commented on 2021-08-13 09:24 (UTC)

@zerophase You can't get fresh adblock lists for one. Please take that conversation to the relevant package though, it isn't an issue with this -bin package.

zerophase commented on 2021-08-13 03:11 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-13 03:13 (UTC) by zerophase)

@alerque What extensions can't run in unofficial builds? Couldn't we just fork the extensions, and enable them?

alerque commented on 2021-08-12 19:02 (UTC)

@srebre It's not an easy as just getting votes. This package is just the upstream binary, for the repos we'd really want to build it ourselves. The brave PKGBUILD does that, but there are other complications (see comments there): Brave Inc. is not letting some extensions run in unofficial builds, plus building it is quite a procedure. That brings us into needing to negotiate license/distribution issues.

I am a TU and have my eye already on moving this to [community] if we can navigate all those dealt with, but don't expect it any time soon. In the mean time using this is your best bet for a working browser (but be aware you're trusting a binary blob built by a for-profit Browser vendor).

srebre commented on 2021-08-12 18:01 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-12 18:04 (UTC) by srebre)

Since this package has 400+ votes, can we integrate it into the official repositories and who should we reach out to? It's the third most popular package by votes in AUR at the time of writing.

alerque commented on 2021-08-06 17:36 (UTC)

@alosarjos Yes, if it's deprecated we should be pointing the current dependency, optional if it is so. I don't let my browsers or DE session handle secrets, so I'm a little out of that loop. Feel free..

alosarjos commented on 2021-08-06 16:42 (UTC)

@alerque, now that the update thing is gone, the package has libgnome-keyring as optional depdency, which is deprecated for libsecret I think. Should that dedepency be changed?

alosarjos commented on 2021-08-05 20:47 (UTC)

The release of 1.27.111 is inminent. I have the PKGBUILD ready in case alerque can't upload it.

I can confirm that:

  1. The systemd-resolved issues are fixed
  2. Printer preview is working fine (But I didn't test it on the previous version)

alerque commented on 2021-08-05 12:02 (UTC)

@the-k Yes at this point I'm sticking to my original position. You can take it up on the aur-general list or something if you want to make a scene, but to consider yourself warned. @mixedCase already outlined some of the issues with your position. Yes, practically EVERY browser update these days include security fixes of various grades and people should be running the absolute latest where possible.

The checksum in this packaging is basically only protecting you from not noticing a corrupted download file. Since it's not being published and signed upstream when this gets bumped it's basically just a blind download by me or somebody else and we slap the checksum we got on it. This is true of most AUR packages. It's basically just the maintainer saying "this is the one that worked for me". If you think that is a safeguard against browser security issues then, respectfully, you're guilty of security theater. At best it tells you your browser downloads are only being MITMed by the same party mine are and not some nefarious clown at your ISP.

To you are anyone else that wants a new version sooner than we push a bump here, download this repo, edit the pkgver to the one you want, and makepkg -sif --skipinteg it.

zerophase commented on 2021-08-04 18:00 (UTC)

Isn't systemd-resolved not the default DNS setup? I thought the arch install has something else for getting DNS working. By the very definition of it not being default Arch wouldn't an Arch user* have enough skills to fix the problem themselves?

*Distros based on Arch are not supported by the AUR as a best practice. They have their own forums for these issues.

CReimer commented on 2021-08-04 17:07 (UTC)

@duhdugg: Tried it again on my computer at home. Same as on my office computer. Opening the print preview in 1.27.109 segfaults for me

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .. 57 Next › Last »