| 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: | 810 |
| Popularity: | 20.16 |
| First Submitted: | 2016-04-06 13:16 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2024-09-25 14:49 (UTC) |
@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.
@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
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!
@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.
Is it possible to get the PKGBUILD to verify the signature of the package please ? https://brave.com/signing-keys/
Thanks for the bin package! Compiling brave takes over 6hr on this machine so really appreciate your contribution! Last time updated brave it timed out on a chromium request (continued to build) as I was asleep.
@laba I have not, this script pretty much just repackages upstream binaries as you can check yourself. Also AFAIK all Chromium derived browsers use system DNS on Linux and, well, I'm getting 1.1.1.1 with DNS over TLS for I have that set up in systemd-resolved.
I can't find anyone mentioning this in the issue tracker either so it sounds like it's just your system's DNS configured to do that as well.
@mixedCase Hi, I noticed a strange think in that brave version. It uses cloudflare 1.1.1.1 dns server with dns over tls enabled even if brave doesn't support neither dns server changing nor enabling dns over tls or https on GNU/Linux. So, have you added it to brave or they have enabled it and haven't said anything ? It's really strange.
@anjanik012 @Takuya For an AUR package to go into [community] it requires adoption by a trusted user, which I'm not, don't want to be, and I haven't received word from one interested in adopting the package.
Additionally, this is the binary distribution from upstream, I'm almost certain TUs would rather adopt the package that is built from source, which is https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/brave
The person who maintains that package keeps a binary repo for it. If you're comfortable with using third party repos and your goal is just to not have to deal with the AUR for updating your browser, might want to look into it.
@anjanik012 I'm hoping that will change in the near future, Vivaldi already did it, a few months ago, hoping more users will vote this package so we could have it on the official repos :). So the answer to your question, I suppose that will be when this package receives much more votes from the AUR community :D.
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.