Package Details: brave-bin 1:1.78.97-1

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: brave
Last Packager: brave
Votes: 875
Popularity: 19.37
First Submitted: 2016-04-06 13:16 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-05-07 17:04 (UTC)

Dependencies (8)

Required by (9)

Sources (4)

Pinned Comments

brave commented on 2025-04-25 13:00 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 .. 61 Next › Last »

mixedCase commented on 2021-08-03 22:19 (UTC)

@alerque First off, sorry I left you this shitshow. I hope I'm not overstepping here.

@the-k Feel free to actually point out the security patches to make an argument. I've grepped through the patchset notes and found nothing under a few common security keywords.

But most important of all: If you care about security to the degree you're trying to intimidate a voluntary maintainer into following your own judgment of what's right, then I must suggest you stop making a public clown out of yourself and your own security practices and stop using a release maintained by a third party of a binary someone else compiled, and compile your own damned browser. I'm not even going to suggest you to read the code, let alone audit it, but at least compile it yourself instead of making nonconstructive comments on someone else's release.

the-k commented on 2021-08-03 21:55 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-03 21:59 (UTC) by the-k)

skip the checksum on build

Are you serious?! Looks like you generally don't take security seriously enough (even though the bar is pretty low).

My not posting that bump here is not depriving you of being able to use the browser.

Duh, I'm talking about this package, not the browser itself. I can still go grab brave package, which includes the relevant patch.

Pushing something known to be broken on at least a large chuck of systems would.

If this wasn't a security upgrade, I'd agree with you 100%. My suggested solution is far from ideal, but it's temporary and it'd make things work while preserving security, which is of the utmost importance. It's also not the only possible solution. You could have made pacman print a short message explaining the situation and describing the workarounds. That way, no downgrade would be forced, and even though the browser would be broken by default on the affected systems, the users would be made aware of the workarounds, which are trivial. Please, keep in mind that we're talking about a security upgrade here.

alerque commented on 2021-08-03 20:01 (UTC)

@the-k I'm sorry, but no, holding back systemd for some -bin package is not a solution I'll be posting here. You are welcome to bump the version number yourself (all it needs in the version number changed and skip the checksum on build). My not posting that bump here is not depriving you of being able to use the browser. Pushing something known to be broken on at least a large chuck of systems would.

the-k commented on 2021-08-03 19:51 (UTC)

@alerque The latest version contains important Chromium security fixes. The correct solution would have been to require systemd-libs<249. The current state prevents me from using this package and deprives the existing users of security.

alosarjos commented on 2021-08-03 10:23 (UTC)

The Chromium team has released the new version with the corrections. I'm not sure if Brave will make a new 1.27 rebased release or if they will wait until 1.28 which is due for next week.

chandradeepdey commented on 2021-08-02 17:19 (UTC)

@francoism90 assuming you are talking about Arch Linux only and not other distributions whose users use AUR for some reason.

It is impossible to say which systems/users are using systemd-resolved.

Still a fraction of users, Arch offers a variety of ways to set up name resolution.

can't assume that they want to adjust their system

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with "if there is a regression, either hold the package yourself or apply the available workarounds"

francoism90 commented on 2021-08-01 07:43 (UTC)

@chandradeepdey It is impossible to say which systems/users are using systemd-resolved. I think there are many, and you can't assume that they want to adjust their system (resolve) settings just for Brave.

duhdugg commented on 2021-07-31 16:10 (UTC)

Fair points, @alosarjos. The package is appropriately flagged as out-of-date currently. I think most types of AUR users are covered.

chandradeepdey commented on 2021-07-31 16:09 (UTC) (edited on 2021-07-31 16:10 (UTC) by chandradeepdey)

@duhdugg oh lol. the workaround was known for 10 days and I found out today. @alosarjos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 .. 61 Next › Last »