Package Details: chromium-pepper-flash 1:22.0.0.209-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/chromium-pepper-flash.git (read-only)
Package Base: chromium-pepper-flash
Description: Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)
Upstream URL: http://www.google.com/chrome
Licenses: custom:chrome
Conflicts: chromium-pepper-flash-dev
Provides: pepper-flash
Submitter: ava1ar
Maintainer: ava1ar
Last Packager: ava1ar
Votes: 1300
Popularity: 30.382483
First Submitted: 2014-10-07 23:11
Last Updated: 2016-07-21 00:54

Required by (6)

Sources (2)

Pinned Comments

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-25 17:39

i686 support was dropped since google drop support of 32-bit linux in google chrome: http://betanews.com/2015/11/30/google-killing-chrome-for-32-bit-linux/

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-13 21:08

Please, do NOT mark package as out-of-date until new version on Google Chrome is out for STABLE channel. Announcement of the new flash version on the Adobe web site doesn't mean it is immidiately available for installation via this package. If you are looking for faster release cycle, try https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-dev, which is based on chrome unstable. Thanks!

Latest Comments

ava1ar commented on 2016-07-17 20:35

One more time - please do NOT flag this package out-of-date when you read that new flash version is out. This package is installing pepper-flas bundled with STABLE chrome version, which may be updated days/weeks after new flash is out. Thanks!

ava1ar commented on 2016-07-14 00:48

No update available yet in stable version, so unflaging...

Jesin commented on 2016-06-21 15:59

Perhaps there is a bug in curl when it is built with nghttp2? Whatever the cause, I am getting a checksum failure because the downloaded chromium-pepper-flash-license.html contains only this: http://ix.io/Vrc

ava1ar commented on 2016-06-17 16:19

@Jesin

In your patch I do not see anything, which is related to build. I saw that license URL changed, but google properly redirects from old to new URL, so no issue here. Can you provide more details about the failure you are getting.

Jesin commented on 2016-06-17 16:16

The package is failing to build. Here is a patch that fixes it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160617161009/http://jesin-pc01.crabdance.com/chromium-pepper-flash.diff

Jesin commented on 2016-06-04 17:35

The license file has moved. It also contains references that fail to load when it is opened locally. Here is an updated PKGBUILD that fixes both of these problems: http://ix.io/OK8

SACViper commented on 2016-06-02 23:41

Requested URL not found please update URL

cnte commented on 2016-05-26 08:40

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-50.0.2661.102-1.x86_64.rpm

url is out-of-date again.

israveri commented on 2016-05-26 06:09

Had the 404 problem and resolved it editing the PKGBUILD file with this url (and the file's sha256sum): https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

WorMzy commented on 2016-05-18 13:12

What does html5 on youtube have to do with a flash plugin for chromium?

xyz commented on 2016-05-18 12:30

I cant watch a video in youtube... not support html5 ?

ava1ar commented on 2016-05-12 05:36

@wolf whole dl.google.com is not a simple http server with directories and files - it is an executable application, written in Go programmming language (see https://talks.golang.org/2013/oscon-dl.slide#1). Their approach of application distibution is just very different from usual.

ava1ar commented on 2016-05-12 05:32

Updated to 21.0.0.242

wolf commented on 2016-05-12 05:00

@Xaekai: thanks, that worked. I had no idea google takes previous releases down, kinda expected them to keep them online.

Xaekai commented on 2016-05-11 20:24

wolf, in the meantime you can just change the "94" to "102" in the version and change the hash to "SKIP" to get updated.

wolf commented on 2016-05-11 18:27

Source seems to be gone:

$ makepkg --sign --force
==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash 1:21.0.0.216-1 (Wed May 11 20:26:58 CEST 2016)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found chromium-pepper-flash-license.html
-> Downloading google-chrome-stable-50.0.2661.94-1.x86_64.rpm...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-50.0.2661.94-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

macxcool commented on 2016-04-21 20:01

Oh. The fame and credits would be so worth it ;-)
I'd vote for you.

Det commented on 2016-04-17 16:18

It's fairly simply tho to just download the http://mirror.retrosnub.co.uk/apt/google/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb, and then extract the data.tar/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/ to /usr/lib.

You could even go on on an adventure, and package it up yourself. A lot of i686 people would be very happy and you would get lots of fame and credits.

Scimmia commented on 2016-04-17 16:09

@davidsmit, packaging an old version with know security problems of a program that's notorious for security problems is a very bad idea.

Det commented on 2016-04-17 08:01

Probably would be, if I was talking about them.

davidsmit commented on 2016-04-17 07:33

But is there any reason to not keep some legacy version of this package for i686? Or am I missing something, then?

Also, Det, chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-Americans, please.

Forum_Liker commented on 2016-04-16 19:00

crash on firefox when the file selection dialog

DrDoctor commented on 2016-04-16 18:22

@WorMzy: That got it. Thanks!

Det commented on 2016-04-16 11:58

I skip the license checks on my google-chrome packages, because different countries are redirected to different licenses. The problem is tho that Chinamen don't have direct access to google.com entirely, so I should probably just keep the English version or smth..

WorMzy commented on 2016-04-16 11:55

@DrDoctor: If they're not passing the integrity checks, then yes, delete them and redownload them. If they still don't pass, check what they are, perhaps your ISP has blocked access to them, and what you're actually downloading is a html message from them.

DrDoctor commented on 2016-04-16 02:19

@WorMzy: Just tried to install again with pacaur, this happened:

:: chromium-pepper-flash build files are up-to-date -- skipping

Do these need to be redownloaded?

WorMzy commented on 2016-04-15 21:02

@DrDoctor: Problem with your downloads? The sha256sums are correct.

DrDoctor commented on 2016-04-15 20:48

:: Checking chromium-pepper-flash integrity...
==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash 1:21.0.0.216-1 (Fri Apr 15 16:47:41 EDT 2016)
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found chromium-pepper-flash-license.html
-> Found google-chrome-stable-50.0.2661.75-1.x86_64.rpm
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
chromium-pepper-flash-license.html ... FAILED
google-chrome-stable-50.0.2661.75-1.x86_64.rpm ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

brain_death commented on 2016-04-07 19:34

New version:

_verbld=49.0.2623.112-1
pkgver=21.0.0.213
...
sha256sums=('b35811bb330576631e64f7885c66720e0be4ca81afb04328b3a0f288a708e37f' 'e6d593d89919d3a1bff5adc7c17d7cd0a2255b1579481da7d55db2fe55dd4e03')

Thanks ava1ar for a great contribution!

WorMzy commented on 2016-04-06 21:23

Please learn how to use the AUR..

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Prerequisites

Det commented on 2016-04-06 21:23

@padman, have a look at: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Prerequisites

padman commented on 2016-04-06 21:21

This package can't be installed without fakeroot package ! please add it in the dependencies... it will avoid many people searching why it won't build.
Thx. ;)

uxiofp commented on 2016-03-28 21:26

# Maintainer: ava1ar <mail(at)ava1ar(dot)me>

pkgname=chromium-pepper-flash
pkgdesc="Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)"
_verbld=49.0.2623.108-1
pkgver=21.0.0.197
pkgrel=1
epoch=1
arch=('x86_64')
url="http://www.google.com/chrome"
license=('custom:chrome')
depends=('gcc-libs')
conflicts=('chromium-pepper-flash-dev')
provides=('pepper-flash')
source=(${pkgname}-license.html::https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha256sums=('b35811bb330576631e64f7885c66720e0be4ca81afb04328b3a0f288a708e37f'
'29a0c928acb16605e2a829b5cf768b2c550b95c58dd70479ec4e6107381b7755')

package() {
# create required directories
install -d "${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash
# copy required files
install -m644 "${srcdir}"/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/* "${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash
# copy license
install -Dm644 "${srcdir}"/${pkgname}-license.html "${pkgdir}"/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/license.html
}

Det commented on 2016-03-28 20:19

Yes. A newer version: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/

That's why I flagged it.

jwhendy commented on 2016-03-28 20:17

Is this this just google being down or has something changed with the URL?
-----
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-49.0.2623.108-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

cb474 commented on 2016-03-28 01:05

@ava1ar Thanks for the explanation. I searched around and could not find the answer to what seemed like a simple question. And thanks for maintaining this package!

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-26 00:19

@cb474 pepperflash is closed-source and bundled with Google Chrome only. Chromium is open source and doesn't support Adobe flash out of the box. So, the answer is "yes, you still need this package for Asobe Flash support in Chromium".

cb474 commented on 2016-03-26 00:13

Is this package still needed for flash in Chromium? I thought flash is built in now? Or is that only with Chrome?

Scimmia commented on 2016-03-25 18:42

Be aware, Joel, that version has known security issues. I wouldn't run it.

Joel commented on 2016-03-25 18:39

Thanks, ava1ar. I'll keep it until I can upgrade my machine to 64 bits.

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-25 18:35

@Joel
Chrome version 48.0.2564.116; pepperflash version 20.0.0.306

Joel commented on 2016-03-25 18:31

What was the last version with i686 support?

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-25 17:39

i686 support was dropped since google drop support of 32-bit linux in google chrome: http://betanews.com/2015/11/30/google-killing-chrome-for-32-bit-linux/

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-25 01:03

Updated to 21.0.0.87; i686 is dropped

WorMzy commented on 2016-03-25 00:43

Latest version is x86_64 only.

verbld=49.0.2623.108
pkgver=21.0.0.197
sha256sums_x86_64=('0ee87e3faf7c9952000da3181b6bb62b27f0449c6d7461a1ba1c84f80818beaf')


EDIT: Not md5sum.

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-13 21:08

Please, do NOT mark package as out-of-date until new version on Google Chrome is out for STABLE channel. Announcement of the new flash version on the Adobe web site doesn't mean it is immidiately available for installation via this package. If you are looking for faster release cycle, try https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-dev, which is based on chrome unstable. Thanks!

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-13 05:29

Waiting for the new stable chrome version from google...
I am going to drop i686 support with next update, since current version already contain critical issues and no fix coming for 32-bit version.

byte commented on 2016-03-13 03:29

He wasn't wrong, the current version is 21.0.0.182 with the usual heap of critical security fixes. But you'd need to extract that from an unstable Chrome snapshot.

Scimmia commented on 2016-03-13 02:38

It's it fun when people flag a package as out of date with no idea what they're doing? Very nice, MrSerenity.

wraihan commented on 2016-03-10 03:18

Noted Det. Thanks.

Det commented on 2016-03-09 19:09

You don't need to change .SRCINFO, as it's only used by the web interface.

wraihan commented on 2016-03-09 19:08

I got this package installed successfully by changing the source input (for x86_64) to http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/myrpms/google/google-chrome-stable-49.0.2623.75-1.x86_64.rpm in both .SRCINFO and PKGBUILD files.

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-04 02:11

Pinned 32-bit version for now, but will remove i686 support as soon as new pepperflash version is out.

satanselbow commented on 2016-03-03 17:27

http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/myrpms/google/google-chrome-stable-48.0.2564.116-1.x86_64.rpm

Scimmia commented on 2016-03-03 13:09

I pinned the i686 download for widevine, but that may not be a good idea for flash as it's much more of a security risk. Since there's not a plugin update, you can pin it to the latest version for now, the drop it later if you decide to.

Det commented on 2016-03-03 08:39

Yah, 32-bit support is dropped: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/12/01/1524259/google-to-drop-chrome-support-for-32-bit-linux

Perhaps it's best to upload a separate "chromium-pepper-flash32-(20)", so that it can be allowed to lag behind and there's no confusion.

ashwin_cse commented on 2016-03-03 05:49

https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-48.0.2564.116-1.x86_64.rpm gives 404 status code for me.

ava1ar commented on 2016-03-03 03:01

Looks like there is no 32-bit version anymore. Anybody has idea what are the plans for the 32-bit pepperflash? Should we upload separate PKGBUILD with version 20.0.0.306 for i686 or it is better to fix current version for 32 bit and update it for 64 bit?

Det commented on 2016-02-19 09:01

What I COULD do is to leave every version as "google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb". But who cares about conflicting source names, right?

Scimmia commented on 2016-02-19 01:05

When the ONLY place your filename exists is in your package, then yes, it is your own naming scheme. But who cares about upstream or compatibility, right?

Det commented on 2016-02-18 20:59

Pfft. Like I've told you a million times, renaming "google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb" to "google-chrome-stable_$pkgver_amd64.deb" is not "my own naming scheme". I haven't added the redundant "-1", because it doesn't ever change in this link either.

You don't need a perfect world with a duplicate package. What you, pcfreak, (or I) could easily do, is to symlink the plugin folder /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/ to /usr/lib/.

Scimmia commented on 2016-02-01 15:35

pcfreak, the problem is that one uses the rpm and the other uses the deb. Further complicating things it that Det uses his own file naming scheme instead of upstream's. In a perfect world, you could set SRCDEST and it would all work. Unfortunately we don't live in that world.

pcfreak commented on 2016-02-01 15:30

Hi,

correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see when installing the chromium-pepper-flash the current version of chrome is downloaded and the plugin gets extracted.
The same happens if a user is using Chrome, Chrome get's downloaded, extracted and prepared for packaging.

So during an update process google-chrome-stable-${_verbld}.i386.rpm or google-chrome-stable-${_verbld}.x86_64.rpm is downloaded twice. One time for the flash plugin and one time for the installation of chrome.

Is there a way that the chromium-pepper-flash and google-chrome AUR packages somehow create a dependency so that one could use the download of the other instead of double download of chrome?

I don't know if this is possible, but it would help a lot. See this as a suggestion for improvement.

Thanks

ava1ar commented on 2016-01-14 01:16

Updated to 20.0.0.267

ava1ar commented on 2016-01-04 03:50

HeinzDo,

Latest available chrome version is 47.0.2526.106-1. It contains pepper-flash plugin v20.0.0.228 - just rebuild and double checked. Where did you get the version 20.0.0.267?

I see version 20.0.0.267 is mentioned on the Adobe page, but it doesn't mean it is available immideately with google chrome. This package is updated together with google-chrome stable. If you want quicker schedule, please switch to chromium-pepper-flash-dev.

HeinzDo commented on 2016-01-03 10:43

In Google Chrome there ist now pepper-flash 20.0.0.267

ava1ar commented on 2016-01-02 19:35

Why was thing flagged out-of-date? There is not update available from google yet. This package updated together with google chrome update schedule, not the adobe flash one, so even if you see update on Adobe web site, this doesn't mean update is available already from Google. If you are looking faster release cycle, you can try chromium-pepper-flash-dev package.

WorMzy commented on 2015-12-27 13:04

It's not. You must have a corrupted rpm download or an outdated license file.

Thaodan commented on 2015-12-27 12:23

why the hell is the checkusum always wrong?!

ava1ar commented on 2015-12-16 02:09

Source version changed, flash version remains the same.

Theredbaron1834 commented on 2015-12-15 22:29

404 error. Don't know if page is just down, an update, or just a change of where files are stored.

For x64, changing source to https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm and changing sha256sums to fb66c8b683e4647ae8a5ebfc679567b909c07bfb413086fe80a4d84461b1ad38 got it working for now, for me.

tensor5 commented on 2015-12-11 01:10

Thanks.

ava1ar commented on 2015-12-11 01:03

Will add gcc-libs dependency with next package update.

tensor5 commented on 2015-12-11 01:02

As long as namcap stays the way it is, I suggest adding gcc-libs.

tensor5 commented on 2015-12-11 01:00

I'm good with either position, but if base should be assumed then someone should modify namcap, because right now it complains about gcc-libs missing dependency. It is recommended in many places that packages should be checked with namcap.

Scimmia commented on 2015-12-11 00:38

Assuming base-devel at build time is something that everyone agrees on. Assuming base at run time is not. Some of the devs think it should be assumed, some don't, and some think that part of it could be assumed.

tensor5 commented on 2015-12-11 00:26

@stuart: the link you shared mentions the base-devel group (not base) and gcc-libs is not part of it. base-devel consists of compile time dependencies and, I agree with you, any of its packages should not be included in makedepends=(); as a matter of fact this is also mentioned here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#makedepends, and applies not only to AUR but also to official packages.
But gcc-libs is a runtime dependency and SHOULD be included in depends=(). Check how many official packages require gcc-libs (https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/gcc-libs/) even though base is always installed.

stuart commented on 2015-12-06 18:51

gcc-libs is part of base, and so inherently it's never a listed dependency. All AUR packages are assumed to include base and base-devel. See: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Prerequisites

tensor5 commented on 2015-11-19 06:02

This package should depend on gcc-libs, as namcap points out.

lots0logs commented on 2015-11-11 00:53

I'm not sure if this is just an unrelated change to their chrome source URL's or if it was intentional to stop users from downloading the files directly, but with that being said, you can try this URL: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

IlikePepsi commented on 2015-11-10 22:34

When trying to build the package I get an error that the chromium .rpm file cannot be found. When clicking the link to the sources above I get an error 404. So does anybody know if the sources have moved maybe? Same applies to the chromium-pepper-flash-dev package.

debwoo commented on 2015-10-29 20:01

@Musikolo thanks. Apparently no direct way to disable it.
Its annoying that every computer (except windows, its disabled here for some reason) running chromium fills up my iptables logs. I just stopped logging port 5353 from now on.

Musikolo commented on 2015-10-29 02:28

@debwoo: Just in case it helps http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/187294/chromium-browser-pepperflashplugin-opening-listening-ports-on-0-0-0-05353

debwoo commented on 2015-10-28 23:28

I noticed that peperflash listens on port 5353:
netstat -tulpn
udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:5353 0.0.0.0:* 17711/libpepflashpl

even after I disabled it in about:plugins

anyone knows how to stop it, other than iptables?

digger commented on 2015-10-22 21:21

New version: https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-46.0.2490.80-1.x86_64.rpm has pepper 19.0.0.226

I could not wait and just edited the snapshot.
sha256sums_x86_64=('f8268b36ce6f9d909cf1d2527bb45963fcb0f578ae6becb7153f7bfeb8dbb3cd')

WorMzy commented on 2015-10-22 21:20

19.0.0.226 is out now, in chrome 46.0.2490.80-1.

sha256sums_i686=('c473f15adb962a275c56341d4aa740537af3ceddf04a0b72e19bae70b5f8021a')
sha256sums_x86_64=('f8268b36ce6f9d909cf1d2527bb45963fcb0f578ae6becb7153f7bfeb8dbb3cd')

debwoo commented on 2015-10-19 21:25

@Scimmia true.

Scimmia commented on 2015-10-19 16:48

@debwoo, that version isn't shipping in Chrome stable yet, though.

debwoo commented on 2015-10-19 16:41

@Scimmia latest version: 19.0.0.226 https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
installed 19,0,0,207.
Apparently last update didn't fix the critical bug.

Scimmia commented on 2015-10-19 14:05

@debwoo, what updates?

debwoo commented on 2015-10-19 14:00

new updates?

urbanslug commented on 2015-09-22 00:15

Updated and working PKGBUILD https://gist.github.com/urbanslug/23e72c5e1f840dd6d1a8

Doesn't check chrome against the AUR version. Therefore no Line 5 `_verbld=...` in the PKGBUILD.

Since checksums and sources should ideally come from upstream.

urbanslug commented on 2015-09-22 00:13

Updated and working PKGBUILD https://gist.github.com/urbanslug/23e72c5e1f840dd6d1a8

Doesn't check chrome against the AUR version. Therefore no Line 5 `_verbld=...` in the PKGBUILD.

cyker commented on 2015-09-15 21:31

Latest stable channel: 45.0.2454.93

ava1ar commented on 2015-09-12 01:14

dixi_minga,
This version is already used in PKGBUILD. Unflagging...

dixi_minga commented on 2015-09-01 23:50

new version: https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-45.0.2454.85-1.x86_64.rpm

ikra commented on 2015-08-26 16:22

it workes perfectly.
thank's

ikra commented on 2015-08-21 15:48

google-chrome-stable is not reachable (404 response from the server) i had to download it manually, then i had to generate the sha256sum and changing it manually, and finally it fails again
here is the output of 'makepkg -s':
Making package: chromium-pepper-flash 1:18.0.0.233-1 (Fri Aug 21 16:44:04 CET 2015)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found chromium-pepper-flash-license.html
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
chromium-pepper-flash-license.html ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

D1scord commented on 2015-08-20 18:32

44.0.2403.157-1 is the latest stable.

esdaniel commented on 2015-08-05 07:13

44.0.2403.130-1 is the latest stable.

Det commented on 2015-07-24 09:16

No need for SHA-256 sums by the way, see: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#Integrity

xorgx3 commented on 2015-07-21 19:11

404 not found when i try download google-chrome-stable.

WorMzy commented on 2015-07-14 13:59

Flash version has been bumped to 18.0.0.209 too.

pkgver=18.0.0.209
_verbld=43.0.2357.134-1
sha256sums_i686=('43de4aeff043fad3b777d4c5da51c8f7bfb9fa3430ae3f7c1d129dc76d09c2d2')
sha256sums_x86_64=('2f09198d8f1b558f54e067d09a07f60a49b7e1aca9fb08a18541f92d1cae5752')

crayZsaaron commented on 2015-07-14 13:45

f3bruary's URL works, but the sha256sum seems to be incorrect. Try this:

source_x86_64=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha256sums_x86_64=('2f09198d8f1b558f54e067d09a07f60a49b7e1aca9fb08a18541f92d1cae5752')

f3bruary commented on 2015-07-07 17:28

Tested on July 7th '15

source_x86_64=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha256sums_x86_64=('3559ca602c7865eed786d4c8b9e6d646cb668eefe9aaf72f0c6c4a5846b57644')

worked for me.

DJ_L commented on 2015-06-23 19:01

Flash Player version string is: 18.0.0.194
x86 sha256 sum is: 288377076c703eb90bb5c562c5178d57a9f3e5830dbf5bd1f7bf620418b907ff

DJ_L commented on 2015-06-23 18:55

Version of flash player is now 18.0.0.194 as well.

vdl commented on 2015-06-22 15:59

As of 22 June:

_verbld=43.0.2357.130-1
sha256sums_x86_64=('c934655f3274c6316ef0c6df7669b4a4ebfd6bfacf896bf586aa299413b57657')

Scimmia commented on 2015-05-13 05:11

Seems correct to me.

taylorchu commented on 2015-05-13 05:04

checksum fails again. I think google changed eula.

GG0sha commented on 2015-05-07 21:58

new chromium-pepper-flash-license.html - sha256summ b35811bb330576631e64f7885c66720e0be4ca81afb04328b3a0f288a708e37f

WorMzy commented on 2015-05-07 12:25

Can confirm that. The only change is an additional analytics script, the licence text itself remains unchanged.

slybzh commented on 2015-05-07 12:12

It seems that google changed their license file, the sha256sum is now b35811bb330576631e64f7885c66720e0be4ca81afb04328b3a0f288a708e37f, resulting in a
"==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!"

raulteixeira commented on 2015-04-25 00:24

I stumbled onto this problem when I first installed the plugin. In my case, I realized that it was because even though I was "closing" chromium, it was still running in the background (along with hangouts). This was somewhat masked in gnome 3 because the icons are a bit hidden, but once I quit those apps, and started up chromium again, all worked well. Hope this helps!

Humble_Panda commented on 2015-04-23 11:23

@foutrelis: Thanks a lot for your reply. Everything matches, and the problem has been solved magically by itself after a couple of reboot attempts (seriously, all of a sudden it appeared in chrome://plugins).

foutrelis commented on 2015-04-23 11:16

@Humble_Panda: You can check if you have the correct files installed using the checksums I've posted below. You also need to verify that 'type -P chromium' returns /usr/bin/chromium.

Humble_Panda commented on 2015-04-23 11:01

I have the same problem as naraesk, but I do not have a customised script for Chromium (in fact, I installed it "fresh" yesterday). PepperFlash gets installed just fine (I assume) but it is not shown in chrome://plugins.

Found tons of old posts about this, but they seemed very outdated. Any lead or suggestion will be very appreciated. Thanks :)

naraesk commented on 2015-04-23 08:28

Mh, it's my fault. I used a customized start script for chromium in /usr/local/bin. With the recent browser update the start script has changed and therefore it wasn't working anymore. Sorry, should have checked this earlier. Thanks for your help. :-)

foutrelis commented on 2015-04-22 20:33

@naraesk: Assuming you're on x86_64, you should see the following checksums. Anything different and you'll know where to look:

$ md5sum /usr/{bin,lib/chromium}/chromium /usr/lib/PepperFlash/*
d47e89ac4dbd57d6daecb96e19606017 /usr/bin/chromium
82fe4dfb6225dc6bc1637059416de129 /usr/lib/chromium/chromium
d89e574b2e487837ae0b560aaba8514a /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
c79570da4089011f61bd310a1980e192 /usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json

naraesk commented on 2015-04-22 20:26

It's not listed there. Everything was working before, until the update two or three days ago.

ava1ar commented on 2015-04-22 14:49

@naraesk

Interesting, exactly same which I have. Can you check if
Adobe Flash Player listed on chrome://plugins/ page?

naraesk commented on 2015-04-22 06:07

chromium Version 42.0.2311.90 (64-bit)

ava1ar commented on 2015-04-21 19:18

@naraesk

Browser? version?

naraesk commented on 2015-04-21 19:13

Doesn't work for me. All i get is the grey "plugin not installed" box on a website.

ava1ar commented on 2015-04-21 03:04

Removed the install file. Please report issues if any. Thanks!

Scimmia commented on 2015-04-20 23:02

The install file hasn't really been necessary for a long time now, as foutrelis said here back on March 1st.

jstjohn commented on 2015-04-20 22:53

With the latest version of Chromium, the .install file is no longer necessary[1].

[1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/chromium.install?h=packages/chromium

MCommand commented on 2015-04-15 17:29

After update newest version. Everytime flash crash "chromium[3112]: segfault at 7f62a87159bc ip 00007f628e99a8f0 sp 00007ffe84fba448 error 7 in libpepflashplayer.so[7f628dd4f000+f9f000]"

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-04-15 08:58

Just schedule auto-update and auto-upload of the package. Why can't do that?

WorMzy commented on 2015-04-15 08:43

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

heftig commented on 2015-04-15 08:01

The files conflict when SRCDEST is set and makepkg collects source files into a common directory.

So the downloaded file should ideally be named $pkgname-license.html.

WorMzy commented on 2015-04-15 07:20

What do you mean? google-talkplugin installs it's license to /usr/share/licenses/google-talkplugin/license.html, this package installs it's license to /usr/share/licenses/chromium-pepper-flash/license.html

They shouldn't conflict.

heftig commented on 2015-04-15 06:55

Please rename license.html to something unique. It conflicts with the license.html in google-talkplugin.

Scimmia commented on 2015-04-14 23:44

Both notations are supported, though, so it's really just maintainer preference.

Det commented on 2015-04-14 20:25

source_i686+=() and source_x86_64+=() don't actually need the +'ses, since they are separate arrays from source=().

owerner commented on 2015-04-14 19:22

sha256sums_x86_64=('dc1e6cc3d1b38c24df7717ca682c83abae8d27321ba1b1637434a20ae3e5c2c8')

owerner commented on 2015-04-14 19:00

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-41.0.2272.118-1.x86_64.rpm


URL 404

wind0 commented on 2015-04-01 20:37

And it changed again, new version:
google-chrome-stable-41.0.2272.118-1

and the sha256sums:
sha256sums_i686=('ee5f0bb3d5ad576ab84583d7f3637a5f61f65c9d94fdc4dc4eac3b2da1f54270')
sha256sums_x86_64=('8dd52783e9cc2730f979013121f454fa88fcbfa05c25a33da9f7f1ac9198af6d')

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-20 15:17

"google-chrome-stable-41.0.2272.101-1" according to the example

wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm | head -c96 | strings

update links in your PKGBUILD and run updpkgsums then install with pacman. better to know how to make on your own if this not working.

WorMzy commented on 2015-03-20 11:18

@NotSure: jsnlry has kindly provided you with the information you need to update the PKGBUILD locally yourself if you're too impatient to wait for ava1ar to update it.

The sha256sums for the new version are:

sha256sums_i686=('149c5e7896260064498e2d2691c9dcb6aa2c143d7efb711d130fc60b13bfe49c')
sha256sums_x86_64=('f68f8c726d74d8113a58c86667dbdd8a3bf5f1ac87622dd238ea5fc86d163632')

NotSure commented on 2015-03-20 11:12

Doesn't work, everytime a 404 error when trying to install. Pls fix.

jsnlry commented on 2015-03-20 07:47

Please Update: The current version is 41.0.2272.101-1. The links to the version in PKGBUILD do not work anymore (404).

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-15 14:57

Andy_Crowd,

Links in the PKGBUILD are not changing, the only thing which changes is actual chrome version. To get it, I use following one-liner:

wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm | head -c96 | strings

which returns actual chrome version.

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-15 10:48

How do you get those links that contains version name 41.0.2272.89-1 in the file name?

WorMzy commented on 2015-03-10 21:41

Good advice. :)

I note that this is the same version that caleb saw previously, so now I think adobe are just messing with people.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-10 21:32

Conclusion is very simple - do not trust Adobe :)

WorMzy commented on 2015-03-10 21:29

Or rather, adobe say the latest PPAPI plugin version is 16.0.0.305 on every platform except linux, where it's 16.0.0.442.

That's me confused completely.

WorMzy commented on 2015-03-10 21:22

New _verbld=41.0.2272.89-1, shas are:
sha256sums_i686=('450f9be70b4c104fe157e8ec6afeedfd37ece86d7dff03330c98aca2bfe37e5b')
sha256sums_x86_64=('ab54c02be9f4570c43468839642cab173e528945195faaad75186429df7266fc')

This chrome appears to have a new flash version: 17.0.0.134, although adobe still say 16.0.0.305 is the latest version.

steven commented on 2015-03-10 18:57

Links for Chromium RPMs not up to date anymore tried to fix this by myself but failed. :)

Scimmia commented on 2015-03-08 15:03

Andy_Crowd, are they redistributing it illegally or do they have an exception for the license?

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-08 14:34

chromium-pepper-flash-*.tar.xz
http://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/repo.cinnarch.com/antergos/
Packages should be compatible with archlinux (i cannot test it yet, can use only ubuntu for a few days) and can skip of downloading the whole google-chrome browser, those are already extracted.

le_fuzzy commented on 2015-03-07 12:44

Did Google update the license? license.html's msha256sum is failing for me.

WorMzy commented on 2015-03-05 15:47

@caleb: I think you misread the version list, for Linux, there's:
- 11.2.202.442, for the horrible old NPAPI plugin, and
- 16.0.0.305, for the PPAPI plugin.

The md5sum hasn't changed for either libpepflashplayer.so or manifest.json since 40.0.2214.111-1, so a pkgrel bump seems pointless to me -- it'll just force people with an up-to-date flash plugin to download another google-chrome archive for no benefit.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-04 21:28

Funny, beta version of chrome contains pepper flash version 16.0.0.305, unstable version - 17.0.0.132, so I have no idea where adobe took version 16.0.0.442.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-04 21:20

caleb
I don't know where adobe takes this versions from, but the stable version of pepper-flash plugin is 16.0.0.305 now. To check this yourself, follow previous post by Andy_Crowd. This package is for stable pepper chrome version and it is following stable chrome releases. If you want most recent version available, switch to chromium-pepper-flash-dev package, which takes the plugin from the dev chrome.

Regarding "There seem to be issues patching old pepper-flash builds into upgraded browsers. The flash version may be the some but something about the interface changes some of the time and re-building this package is a must after most chromium updates" - do you have any proof of that or can point so such issue? From my understanding, pepper flash packages with same version are identical, do you have other opinion?

caleb commented on 2015-03-04 21:14

Latest Linux PPAPI build should be 16.0.0.442 per Adobe website. And I second the request from @smirky to bump the package build when the upstream package being jumbled through changes. There seem to be issues patching old pepper-flash builds into upgraded browsers. The flash version may be the some but something about the interface changes some of the time and re-building this package is a must after most chromium updates.

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-04 20:14

You can even download the latest chrome from here
https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html
and the "manifest.json" file in the "./opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/" directory in archive contains version, extract it and use "grep version manifest.json"
And you will that it is still "16.0.0.305" and this PKGBUILD also contains the same version.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-04 15:10

Flash plugin version did not change (in was 16.0.0.305 in chrome 40 and remains same in 41), so I did not increment the build as well.
Any valid point to bump PKGBUILD version with every package change, not only with flash plugin version? I don't think google will update flash plugin binary without changing its version. However I never checked that - just trusting google in this small thing, so if you have other information, please share.

smirky commented on 2015-03-04 15:03

Actually it is changed, according to this:
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

But that wasn't the reason for my request. Isn't the flash extracted from the Chrome package and installed separately? If so, that means that every new package has a chance to contain a different flash plugin.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-04 14:58

smirky,

Why, if plugin version wasn't change?

smirky commented on 2015-03-04 14:57

Can you please update the PKGBUILD's version with *-2 and similar in the future? This is causing yaourt to ignore the update.

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-04 11:23

Andy_Crowd,

This PKGBUILD will work in a sense that every time when you will build the package, it will build the actual version. BUT, pacman/yaourt/whatever will never notify you there is updated version available, unless I upload updated PKGBUILD (this is what is happening now).
Generally, pkgver() function was introduce to be used in development packages (-svn, -git, -hg, etc) which you are to rebuild time-to-time, i.e. using yaourt and --devel flag.

Any other opinions about this?
If

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-01 21:23

I got the tip from lahwaacz about this alternative of updating PKGBUILD
https://gist.github.com/lahwaacz/11d15cad8374fbfcee38

Andy_Crowd commented on 2015-03-01 19:35

I made a script that will generate PKGBUILD, just add
makepkg
mkaurball
AUR uploaders
and schedule it with cron.

https://github.com/AndyCrowd/auto-generate-configuration-files/blob/master/autogen-pepperflash-PKGBUILD

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-01 17:04

foutrelis,

Got it, thanks. Will update package soon to use separate config.

foutrelis commented on 2015-03-01 17:02

The change to source additional configuration files was done in the /usr/bin/chromium launcher script. [1] Custom builds would need to include this change in order to source /etc/chromium/pepper-flash like the official package does.

[1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/diff/trunk/chromium.sh?h=packages/chromium&id=f2b684e

ava1ar commented on 2015-03-01 16:55

Package updated. So many noise in comments just after one minor chrome version update without plugin version change. I am definitely sorry for the delay, but I expected people here are knowledgeable enough to follow simple steps which WorMzy mentioned without posting same stuff about broken links again and again.

foutrelis,

thanks for the update. Do you know will it work with chromium from official repo or custom chromium builds as well?

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-26 13:08

...The "workaround" is to simply update the _verbld from 40.0.2214.111-1 to 40.0.2214.115-1, and update the sha256sums (either by updpkgsums, or manually copying them from the comments).

Or just use Scimmia's updated tarball.

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-26 13:08

...The "workaround" is to simply update the _verbld from 40.0.2214.111-1 to 40.0.2214.115-1, and update the sha256sums (either by updpkgsums, or manually copying them from the comments).

Or just use Skimmia's updated tarball.

ferchu commented on 2015-02-26 13:01

I made a workarround until the maintainers fix this problem.

I use 64 bits, so I fix the pkgbuild only for 64 bits.
If you use 32 bits, you must to change it acording and get the new checksum.

For installing or upgrading, you must:

1- yaourt -Syua or yaourt -S chromium-pepper-flash

2- Edit pkgbuild and replace for this:

# Maintainer: ava1ar <mail(at)ava1ar(dot)me>

pkgname=chromium-pepper-flash
pkgdesc="Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)"
_verbld=40.0.2214.111-1
pkgver=16.0.0.305
pkgrel=1
epoch=1
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="http://www.google.com/chrome"
license=('custom:chrome')
conflicts=('chromium-pepper-flash-dev')
install=chromium-pepper-flash.install
# temporary to enforce upgrade to pacman 4.2
makedepends=('pacman>=4.2')
source=(license.html::https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html)
source_i686+=("https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-${_verbld}.i386.rpm")
source_x86_64+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha256sums=('c714679be9b1de35475bfcd58b4d2fa5baf87c00eb049185ec062de276203d13')
sha256sums_i686=('e43ec5e42d2834ccfdaa356b3ff833e6749847330d5b10b93700459ac1348ed4')
sha256sums_x86_64=('3848a778a9e800bc7a68c86358638f811c82aa2e71c128d73f1b80273af78c76')

package() {
# create required directories
install -d "${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash
# copy required files
install -m644 "${srcdir}"/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/* "${pkgdir}"/usr/lib/PepperFlash
# copy license
install -Dm644 "${srcdir}"/license.html "${pkgdir}"/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/license.html
}

3- Save and continue.

Scimmia commented on 2015-02-25 22:19

I just got an email from the maintainer that he's been out of the country since the 14th and will be back on March 1st. IMO, leaving a package this popular and this active unmaintained for two weeks is a bit ridiculous, but whatever. I've cleaned things up and switched to the .debs: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nx7wpcvd4tt1cgm/chromium-pepper-flash-1%2016.0.0.305-1.src.tar.gz

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-25 21:55

@cekstam: The versioned sources still work for me with the correct version (40.0.2214.115).

petterk commented on 2015-02-25 20:32

The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-40.0.2214.111-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

cekstam commented on 2015-02-25 08:18

Google seems to have moved the sources for this. Getting 404 on both i386 and x86_64.
Going for a download thru their website returned the following urls;

https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm

Replacing _current_ with a version variable gives you a 404, either using a different format or the archive has moved elsewhere.

-ekstam

georgnix commented on 2015-02-24 07:19

The plugin actually does show up. I was confused by it being listed as
"Adobe Flash Player - Version: 16.0.0.305"
If you look closer, there is Location: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
Sorry for the confusion!

Is this supposed to work with DRM stuff (amazon prime, etc.)? Doesn't work for me. I guess it doesn't have the DRM functionality...

MasWag commented on 2015-02-24 06:13

@ georgnix
I have fixed PKGBUILD and chromium-pepper-flash.install manually, then pepper plugin got up to date. Have you tried restart chromium? It seems chromium is running background.

AJSlye commented on 2015-02-23 23:06

Broken:
* The pepper plugin does not show up in chrome://plugins
Fix:
etc/chromium/default needs to contain:

CHROMIUM_FLAGS+=' --ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=16.0.0.305'

https://forum.manjaro.org/index.php?topic=20747.msg186253#msg186253
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43804
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash-standalone/

georgnix commented on 2015-02-21 14:50

Broken:
* rpm url out of date (http 404).
* If the PKGBUILD is fixed manually, the pepper plugin does not show up in chrome://plugins

foutrelis commented on 2015-02-20 10:38

Please note that chromium 40.0.2214.115-1 will source all files under /etc/chromium/ so you can include the flash related flags in e.g.: /etc/chromium/pepper-flash and don't have to modify /etc/chromium/default. [1]

/etc/chromium/pepper-flash could contain:

CHROMIUM_FLAGS+=' --ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=16.0.0.305'

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43804

ArnaudNux commented on 2015-02-19 18:23

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERREUR : Erreur lors du téléchargement de google-chrome-stable-40.0.2214.111-1.i386.rpm
Abandon...
==> ERREUR: Makepkg n'a pas pu construire chromium-pepper-flash.
==> Relancer la compilation de chromium-pepper-flash ? [o/N]

walialu commented on 2015-02-19 17:03

source_x86_64+=('https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm')
sha256sums_x86_64=('3848a778a9e800bc7a68c86358638f811c82aa2e71c128d73f1b80273af78c76')

is working for me :)

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-19 17:02

40.0.2214.115 just released, new sha256sums:

i686: a777bd5fd383804a1e6c867ba5e3a4321e001af512b22dd2d7789d10ef955317
x86_64: 3848a778a9e800bc7a68c86358638f811c82aa2e71c128d73f1b80273af78c76

License and flash version appear unchanged.

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-19 16:54

40.0.2214.115 just released, new sha256sums:

i686: a777bd5fd383804a1e6c867ba5e3a4321e001af512b22dd2d7789d10ef955317
x86_64: 3848a778a9e800bc7a68c86358638f811c82aa2e71c128d73f1b80273af78c76

License appears unchanged.

seblu commented on 2015-02-19 01:48

The package build is broken for 12 days. Could you fix the sha256sums array.

PhCl commented on 2015-02-08 14:56

@natrio Could be a caching issue. Does it help if you delete or rename the cached license /var/cache/pacman/pkg-local/license.html?

natrio commented on 2015-02-08 14:54

license.html was changed, it fails the sha256sum check.

WorMzy commented on 2015-02-06 14:54

The problem with using "current" rpms is that they are updated in place on the server, meaning that people think the sha sums are out of date, when in actual fact, their local rpm is out of date. That leads to a lot of noise in the comments section.

It's better to stick with "versioned" rpms (or debs).

spicewiesel commented on 2015-02-06 14:38

latest sources, I could build with them:

source_x86_64+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha256sums_x86_64=('4b5bc3233aa8ac9396d34dfe5bfa31c328e14143721a27d7d56880131f99093f')

soupault commented on 2015-02-05 19:38

latest:
_verbld=40.0.2214.111-1
pkgver=16.0.0.442
sha256sums_x86_64: 4b5bc3233aa8ac9396d34dfe5bfa31c328e14143721a27d7d56880131f99093f

soupault commented on 2015-02-05 19:37

latest:
https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-40.0.2214.111-1.x86_64.rpm
sha256: 4b5bc3233aa8ac9396d34dfe5bfa31c328e14143721a27d7d56880131f99093f

johnLate commented on 2015-02-05 17:03

I guess oxplot is referring to http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
which says:
'Linux; Chrome (embedded), Chromium-based browsers - PPAPI; 16.0.0.442'

Reventlov commented on 2015-02-05 13:55

@oxplot: It's 16.0.0.305 for chrome/chromium.

oxplot commented on 2015-02-05 12:11

Seems like 16.0.0.442 is out now.

brain_death commented on 2015-02-05 10:59

_verbld=40.0.2214.95-1
pkgver=16.0.0.305
sha256sums_i686=('5d9c4e2b670e957e1dbc96d7c1f92d206980c69232c44016579f4d2d5ddec861')
sha256sums_x86_64=('c5a83a12e47124699ccef0ba848ab76c440fc90833e3fa6fbc8a6bf8e751a539')

dixi_minga commented on 2015-02-04 12:38

new sources:
https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-40.0.2214.95-1.x86_64.rpm
https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-40.0.2214.95-1.i386.rpm

delmadord commented on 2015-01-29 23:48

_verbld=40.0.2214.94-1
pkgver=16.0.0.296
sha256sums_x86_64=('a18ea1ee836dd1be7fb0ffc81aea69fb20fce014be99a669eda8a029498792dd')
##
sha256sums_i686=('433a23f04e170ff2000f00a72c4bc8dce271404e8c1466578710f629f9a86187')

delmadord commented on 2015-01-29 23:47

For i686:

sha256sums_i686=('433a23f04e170ff2000f00a72c4bc8dce271404e8c1466578710f629f9a86187')

delmadord commented on 2015-01-29 23:45

Current fix:

_verbld=40.0.2214.94-1
pkgver=16.0.0.296
sha256sums_x86_64=('a18ea1ee836dd1be7fb0ffc81aea69fb20fce014be99a669eda8a029498792dd')

Synthead commented on 2015-01-29 17:44

New links for the RPM files:
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm

Synthead commented on 2015-01-29 17:40

This PKGBUILD should not have "pacman" in the makedepends. PKGBUILDs in the AUR are expected to be built using an up-to-date Arch system with base-devel installed.

Synthead commented on 2015-01-29 17:37

x86_64 RPM link returns a 404.

sergio1204 commented on 2015-01-29 11:14

dixi_minga respect!

Airion commented on 2015-01-28 21:15

thanks, dixi_minga, worked!

dixi_minga commented on 2015-01-27 15:23

and
pkgver=16.0.0.296

dixi_minga commented on 2015-01-27 15:19

for x86_64 change in PKGBUILD:
_verbld=40.0.2214.93-1
sha256sums_x86_64=('5cb90f9615e3b84fd629c87f30586ab5134ca912e2b4b7f0a385fb1e249c6761')

for i686:
_verbld=40.0.2214.93-1
sha256sums_i686=('6dd095e8a97c77b6452df4734adbc6a4de4db56596b8a1b424695da3b7a43e0b')

codestation commented on 2015-01-27 02:49

The RPM links are dead.

Steef commented on 2015-01-26 11:34

The package gives an error for me. The given license.html-URL returns a 302 Moved and therefore fails the checksum. The new URL is https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/eula_text.html.

WorMzy commented on 2015-01-25 15:18

The reason is in the comments, but long story short, the PKGBUILD has features that aren't compatible with older versions of pacman. A lot of Arch-based distros with outdated pacman versions were having problems with it.

jleclanche commented on 2015-01-25 15:02

Why does this depend on pacman?

hybrid commented on 2015-01-23 16:57

@dvk
just edit the epoch out. It's neither mandatory nor necessary nor does it any good in this case.

epoch was introduced to give pacman/the maintainer control over packages that require it, for example due to a versioning system pacman can't resolve. Use epoch>0 as a fix if necessary. In any other case have pacman resolve pkgname, pkgver and pkgrel. Here we have a consistent and usuable version system, no need for epoch whatsoever.

ava1ar commented on 2015-01-22 17:44

@dvk

epoch was introduced long ago for whatever reason and it can't be decreased (it will break autoupdate logic and force users to install new package manually, see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#epoch). I don't see any issues or problems with using epoch though.

dvk commented on 2015-01-22 17:40

Why use epoch in the package version? Why not version it as 16.0.0.291-1, like they do in the dev branch?

Scimmia commented on 2015-01-22 14:59

@ava1ar, it's not something that keeps me up at night, but it is an annoyance. The deb files are also better than 20% smaller, which benefits everyone.

bernarcher commented on 2015-01-22 10:15

There was a stale license.html file in my pacman/local directory. After removing this one the update worked.

bernarcher commented on 2015-01-22 10:01

Updating from Germany failed today with

Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... FAILED

ava1ar commented on 2015-01-22 02:03

Scimmia,
you really care about the 50 mb extra downloads? I will take a look at the debs when have a time, but what I don't like in deps is requirement in double unpacking to get package content.

Package updated. Please report issues with licence checksum - looks like license content depends on geographical location. If the issues persist, I will either user 'SKIP' as a checksum or bundle license file with the package.

frederik commented on 2015-01-21 19:55

16.0.0.291 is out

Anonymous comment on 2015-01-21 19:47

It seems like google-chrome-stable-39.0.2171.99-1.x86_64.rpm has been removed.

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-39.0.2171.99-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.

draringi commented on 2015-01-19 15:09

License has moved. Now at https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/eula_text.html

Scimmia commented on 2015-01-16 04:57

Any way I could convince you to use the .deb files instead of the .rpm files? The google-chrome packages in the AUR use the debs, and it would make it easier for those that use both packages at various times if the file might already be downloaded.

winlu commented on 2015-01-15 07:45

their eula might have been updated.

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... FAILED

[winlu@megaton chromium-pepper-flash]$ sha256sum license.html
8dd9b0034b69d523eab459ee3b00379421e4e41b780014b0345aba5697a86bc4 license.html

WorMzy commented on 2015-01-14 16:28

If you're using Arch -- update your system.
If you're using a derivative of Arch that hasn't updated pacman yet -- adapt the PKGBUILD for your system.

JohnBlood commented on 2015-01-14 16:19

When I try to install the update, I get this message: "Error: target not found: pacman>=4.2" What's the fix?

PhCl commented on 2015-01-07 19:47

Now building with makepkg worked, too. The hash values in the PKGBUILD also are fine. Only building with yaourt failed.

I analyzed it. From what I see, yaourt used a cached version of the license file (in my case, /var/cache/pacman/pkg-local/license.html). One I moved that away, "yaourt -S chromium-pepper-flash" succeeded.

WorMzy commented on 2015-01-06 22:51

@ava1ar:
Cheers, it's working again now.


@PhCl:
Works fine here:

==> Retrieving sources...
-> Downloading license.html...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 265 100 265 0 0 228 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 228
100 52959 0 52959 0 0 27569 0 --:--:-- 0:00:01 --:--:-- 27569
-> Found google-chrome-stable-39.0.2171.95-1.x86_64.rpm
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... Passed

PhCl commented on 2015-01-06 22:45

sha256sum currently fails for license.html:

==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash 1:16.0.0.235-3 (Tue Jan 6 23:44:46 CET 2015)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found license.html
-> Found google-chrome-stable-39.0.2171.95-1.x86_64.rpm
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.

ava1ar commented on 2015-01-06 03:29

@WorMzy

Sorry, looks like I overwrote it. Fixed now, please check.

alienbob commented on 2015-01-05 11:39

@ava1ar

See http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/chromium/ for the chromium sources and packages.

Build script (chromium.SlackBuild) is here: http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/chromium/build/chromium.SlackBuild

The patch is here: http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/chromium/build/patches/chromium_widevine.patch

The widevine plugin (build script, packages etc) is here:
http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/chromium-widevine-plugin/

WorMzy commented on 2015-01-05 10:14

Hi ava1ar, you've removed the no-chromium '[ $_default ] || return 0' statement from the install file, so the errors are back from users without chromium. Please could you re-add it?

Cheers

predmijat commented on 2015-01-03 14:44

I was also getting "ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!". Removing the old license file did not help - it was failing with manual build even though the sums looked ok (I ran a manual check for the license file and it was the same as in the PKGBUILD).

After I downloaded the tarball and ran "updpkgsums", it worked, although I'm not sure why...

ava1ar commented on 2015-01-02 22:42

@alienbob

Interesting! Can you share link to the repo and package build scripts?

alienbob commented on 2015-01-02 22:38

@willmtemple
@tancrackers
@ava1ar

The new chromium and chromium-widevine-plugin packages I uploaded to my Slackware repository yesterday are working, and I get to watch Netflix video's in my chromium browser. Basically, the compile needs to find libwidevinecdm.so (extracted from the Chrome .rpm or .deb) so that it can build the libwidevinecdmadapter.so library. A small patch is all that's required, not much different from the patch I had been using without success.

Scimmia commented on 2015-01-02 15:34

@mazieres, remove the old license file.

ava1ar commented on 2015-01-01 20:53

mazieres,

Can't confirm this - works for me. Checksum for licence is correct.

mazieres commented on 2015-01-01 20:19

Fails with:

==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

Freso commented on 2015-01-01 18:51

Yeah. I just realised my /tmp tmpfs is full... sorry!

Kyrias commented on 2015-01-01 18:48

That sounds more like disk errors.

Freso commented on 2015-01-01 18:34

I'm getting some "Write failed" errors with 1:16.0.0.235-3: https://pastee.org/7em6b

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-31 23:54

Kyrias, sl1pkn07

Thanks for ideas - got rid of $startdir usage.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-31 20:52

Psynigmashi,

You are correct - this PKGBUILD is using new syntax, introduced in pacman 4.2. If you are not arch user, you won't be able to use this PKGBUILD as-is till pacman update in Manjaro. However, changes required to PKGBUILD are trivial, so you can always adjust it before build.

Psynigmashi commented on 2014-12-31 20:46

I'm getting this error now, "The dependency `pacman` demands version `>=4.2`, but the most recent version is `4.1.2-8`." I think I realized what the problem is for me. I use manjaro and I didn't realize they use their own repository, so I'm guessing they haven't added the new version of pacman to their repository yet. That's my guess anyway. I haven't used manjaro for that long, so I don't know a lot about it.

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-12-31 20:41

try something like this in .install

http://sl1pkn07.wtf/paste/view/fb2a8eb2

no need edit the file anymore

Kyrias commented on 2014-12-31 20:40

I meant manually updating the post_install script, not the default file itself.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-31 20:24

Kyrias,

I know that the current way of updating the etc/chromium/default is hacky, but I do not see better way doing this yet. Manual update is not an option for a lot of users, since it will require manual action after each update and very error-prone. If you have good ideas of how to avoid using ${startdir}, please share.

Kyrias commented on 2014-12-31 20:14

Package builds fine (now at least.), though the `${startdir}` really stands out as a sore thumb because it’s a makepkg internal variable that should never be used in PKGBUILDs anymore, and this should really be done manually and not in the PKGBUILD itself, but do whatever you want.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-31 20:04

I made some cosmetic changes to the package function and added temporary makedepends=('pacman>=4.2') to force people use of new pacman to ensure proper build.

Please report if you still having issues with building/installing this package.

Psynigmashi commented on 2014-12-31 17:59

I just checked and my PepperFlash directory is /opt/google/chrome-unstable/PepperFlash/. I downloaded the google-chrome-dev package alongside chromium, so that's probably why it's different for me. I wonder if it would be safe to just change the directory in the PKGBUILD or if I should just wait until it gets fixed.

neverfox commented on 2014-12-31 17:45

Same error. It's pretty explicit about what the problem is:

cannot stat ‘opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/*’: No such file or directory

This comes from the line `install -m644 opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/* "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/PepperFlash"`

Sure enough, the folder on my system is opt/google/chrome/pepper, not PepperFlash.

Psynigmashi commented on 2014-12-31 16:50

I'm getting the same error. First I tried building the package with aura and when that didn't work I tried building manually with makepkg and it's still giving me the same error. I already updated pacman to the new version, so I don't think that's what's causing it.

zegoti commented on 2014-12-31 15:29

Hi I am getting error. yaourt doesn't seems to download the package. Please undo your change.

andy_v commented on 2014-12-31 12:49

Works just fine for me. Make sure you have an up-to-date version of pacman (4.2). The PKGBUILD makes use of the new syntax introduced with pacman v4.2.

masolit commented on 2014-12-31 10:19

you're drunk! submitter

apaatsio commented on 2014-12-31 09:18

==> Building and installing package
==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash 1:16.0.0.235-3 (Wed Dec 31 11:18:21 EET 2014)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found license.html
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
license.html ... Passed
==> Extracting sources...
==> Removing existing pkg/ directory...
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting package()...
install: cannot stat ‘opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/*’: No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.

masolit commented on 2014-12-31 07:12

==> Starting package()...
install: cannot stat ‘opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/*’: No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.

Strit commented on 2014-12-31 06:50

I get an error when trying to build the new version of this package.
Something about /opt/google/chrome/Flash not existing.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-31 04:49

package updated

ids1024 commented on 2014-12-31 00:56

@ava1ar 4.2 is in core now.

sushidude commented on 2014-12-29 23:47

Please switch this PKGBUILD to use sha512sums instead of sha1sums, hash the license, and use HTTPS for the license download.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-25 23:32

Kyrias,

pacman 4.2 is not in core yet. Will update my packages after 4.2 released in core.

Kyrias commented on 2014-12-25 23:11

This PKGBUILD should be updated to use the new architecture specific sources/checksums in pacman 4.2

Backtoback commented on 2014-12-12 10:35

Hello,

I had a mystake when I tryed to upgrade this software.

I searched a little, and I think I find the explanation.

The url to get the licence have changed.

You can find my explanantion here : https://forums.archlinux.fr/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16269&p=138369#p138369

But you need to change the url by this one : https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/eula_text.html

Thanks for your work.

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-11 13:55

TheSaint,

install file should not include leading '/', so it is correct. If you still have issues, please recheck the actual build and if it is not working for you, share following information:
1) Do you have chrome/chromium installed
2) What is the error you are getting

Thanks

TheSaint commented on 2014-12-11 11:23

The install has a flaw, see https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1483502#p1483502

ava1ar commented on 2014-12-11 02:19

Thanks, guys - issue fixed.

WorMzy commented on 2014-12-10 15:47

That would work too. The current install script has avoided bashisms though (for whatever reason).

victorz commented on 2014-12-10 15:01

@WorMzy: Or, since PKGBUILDs are just bash scripts, use the bash built-in [[ compound command, which yields false for undefined variables:

[15:59 ~]% bash -c '[ -f $undef ]; echo $?'
0
[15:59 ~]% bash -c '[[ -f $undef ]]; echo $?'
1

WorMzy commented on 2014-12-10 13:33

Hi ava1ar, there's is a mistake in the logic you have used for the no-chromium check. -f is used to check the existence of a regular file, but if no argument is provided (e.g. as is the case when _default is not set), it returns true by default.

$ unset _default
$ [ -f $_default ] || echo false
(no output)

Please change to my recommendation below, without the -f, as [ ] defaults to false:

$ unset _default
$ [ $_default ] || echo false
false

Cheers,

y157 commented on 2014-12-09 23:32

For x86_64 Download: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
Use "sha1sum google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm"

Choose yes to edit PKGBUILD and edit two lines:

sha1sums+=('b7afd6038417a323bcb0629addf2b692bd461dc9') #This should be the sda1sum from the above command. Recently it was: 66b59c537b4cc835183a9521fc301e6048954c0a

AND

source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/${_arch}/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.${_arch}.rpm)
should be:
source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${_arch}.rpm)


ava1ar commented on 2014-11-29 23:43

@hendry
Why it should? IT is different version of a plugin, taken from the stable chrome version. google-chrome-unstable, as you can get from it's name, deals with unstable chrome version.

hendry commented on 2014-11-29 10:12

Why isn't this just part of google-chrome-unstable ?!

ava1ar commented on 2014-11-29 01:08

@WorMzy

Will do with the next update.

WorMzy commented on 2014-11-28 21:32

Hi, ava1ar, could you add:

[ $_default ] || return 0

to the top of the install file's upgrade function? That would suppress the noise non-chromium users get.

Cheers.

HighValueWarrior commented on 2014-11-25 23:19

404 here as well

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-39.0.2171.65-1.x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-11-18 23:44

Package updated.

bcc commented on 2014-11-18 23:30

for me the rpm 404's.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-38.0.2125.122-1.x86_64.rpm

valentin.brasov commented on 2014-11-18 19:00

I downloaded the rpm and computed the sha1sum c9e4cb48aefc7d181b30e9144131a126b1c6b8af

valentin.brasov commented on 2014-11-18 18:50

@mardiros:

0effc64b12dcab6e3bf2f5fd17155ca008a7cb40 is not the correct sha1sum for https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${_arch}.rpm

Could you please provide the correct sha1sum?

Thank you.

draringi commented on 2014-11-13 14:55

felixonmars, Changing the url in the PKGBUILD is easy enough.
Changing the default url to cleartext would not be a good idea, in general.

draringi commented on 2014-11-13 14:53

felixonmars, changing the url in the PKGBUILD is easy enough.
Changing the default to https is not a good idea in my opinion.

felixonmars commented on 2014-11-12 10:52

Hi, it would be great if the download link could be changed to http instead of https, since the https one doesn't work here (with some Chinese ISP).

mardiros commented on 2014-11-11 20:10

sha1sum for x86_64 I mean

mardiros commented on 2014-11-11 20:10

Source is broken:


source: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${_arch}.rpm

sha1sum: 0effc64b12dcab6e3bf2f5fd17155ca008a7cb40

ThePacman commented on 2014-11-01 18:11

parched: Google does not like people redistributing their stuff without permission. This exists in the AUR because if the Arch servers were to host "modified" (repackaged) versions of Google's copyrighted files, they would probably be in trouble.
However, anybody can download the files and modify them on their own computer for personal use (which is exactly what this AUR script lets you do.)

tl;dr: There are no publicly available repos of this because of copyright and licensing reasons.

webhive commented on 2014-10-29 11:47

Still has no Flash in chrome://plugins

ava1ar commented on 2014-10-29 02:16

PKGBUILD updated, however flash plugin version was not changed.

ninian commented on 2014-10-27 23:47

Can replace source in PKGBUILD with:
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${_arch}.rpm
for latest stable version.

parched commented on 2014-10-27 23:19

Is there any unofficial repos with this in it?

edoantonioco commented on 2014-10-27 19:44

Its not working

==> ERROR: Error al descargar google-chrome-stable-38.0.2125.104-1.x86_64.rpm
Cancelando...
==> ERROR: Makepkg no ha podido compilar chromium-pepper-flash.

webhive commented on 2014-10-20 16:05

@ava1ar

Here is my /etc/chromium/default

CHROMIUM_FLAGS=" --ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=15.0.0.189"

webhive commented on 2014-10-20 16:01

Confirm - got the same problem

Torxed commented on 2014-10-10 09:38

Took a second to figure out why chrome://plugins didn't show the plugin.
Don't forget to turn off chromium/hangouts in your systray if you have that running. Since after installing pepper-flash you need to restart the entire webbrowser if i'm not mistaken, this includes hangouts and other addons running along side chrome.

Chazza commented on 2014-10-09 20:30

Flash is showing up in chrome://plugins and working just fine for me.
chromium-pepper-flash 1:15.0.0.152-1
chromium 38.0.2125.101-1

Reventlov commented on 2014-10-09 07:53

What's the difference between this package and the chromium-pepper-flash-old version ? Why not modifying the "old" package ? (I mean, since the sums are the same for the two rpm)

ava1ar commented on 2014-10-09 00:07

@gorgeous.george

Can you post the content of the /etc/chromium/default.

orschiro commented on 2014-10-08 09:51

@gorgeous.george

I cannot confirm this using

chromium 37.0.2062.120-2
chromium-pepper-flash 1:15.0.0.152-1

Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Uwbqpot.png

gorgeous.george commented on 2014-10-08 08:34

After building package with makepkg and installing with pacman (without any errors) chromium is still saying that I need flash player. pepper flash doesn't appear under chrome://plugins. Anyone having same problem?

ava1ar commented on 2014-10-07 23:17

Since we have only 1 package left inside the splitted package, I decided to move it to the standalone package (lot of AUR helper tools still have issues with splitted packages). So, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-pepper-flash/ is new package for PepperFlash. This package will be merged into new one soon.

ava1ar commented on 2014-10-07 22:57

@willmtemple

Thanks for your efforts, please keep us updated.

gorgeous.george commented on 2014-10-07 22:31

404: File Not Found issue still here.

willmtemple commented on 2014-10-07 10:27

@tancrackers
@ava1ar

Alien's slackware package does not work. libwidevinecdm cannot be imported into current chromium or chromium-dev, as it requires the 'branding' gyp variable to be set to 'Chrome' during compile time. Setting that variable will cause the build to fail (because Google includes proprietary code and copyrighted images that we don't have in their Chrome branded builds).

I took the gyp configurations and patched them such that the widevine cdm support would be built in to 'Chromium' branded builds and by issuing -Denable-pepper-cdms to the gyp configurator. I also had to fake a header file and move libwidevinecdm.so to another folder within the chromium source tree. It compiled, and the plugin will automatically load when it is within the plugin path (i.e. /usr/lib/chromium/) but it will still not work. Chromium dumps several javascript errors into terminal because the plugins are acting bad.

I'll keep looking into it, but I don't think that there's a good way to get Widevine into the current stable or dev releases of chromium.

orschiro commented on 2014-10-02 15:28

Could someone please test if he can reproduce an issue with prezi.com:

Open a presentation and place the cursor in a text field. Press the arrow keys to move the cursor around. On my Chromium installation, the cursor is not moving.

I would very much appreciate if someone can test whether he or she is affected by the same issue.

Thanks!

boorg commented on 2014-10-01 21:49

Can you update install script to be aware of opera?

Plugin is working fine for opera-beta (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/opera-beta/) but install script gives errors. Maybe it is enough to do nothing if chromium configs are not present.

ava1ar commented on 2014-09-29 03:31

Guys,

I checked widewine behavior on linux with current stable chromium and looks like it is not working, at least on Netflix. Let's wait for the new stable version and I will try again.

WorMzy commented on 2014-09-28 19:49

pacaur apparently isn't resolving the pkgbase (https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/chromium-plugins/).

This is odd, because cower does.

$ cower -d chromium-pepper-flash
:: chromium-pepper-flash downloaded to /tmp
$ cd chromium-plugins
$ ls
PKGBUILD chromium-pepper-flash.install

I'd file a bug report against pacaur if I were you.

myles commented on 2014-09-28 18:51

Thanks for maintaining this package. I get this:

$ pacaur -S chromium-pepper-flash
:: Package(s) chromium-pepper-flash not found in repositories, trying AUR...
:: resolving dependencies...
:: Could not read chromium-pepper-flash PKGBUILD: badly packaged tarball

I wonder if you are using mkaurball?

ava1ar commented on 2014-09-27 23:02

Current PKGBUILD works file for me, URLs are still valid:

https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-37.0.2062.120-1.x86_64.rpm
and
https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-37.0.2062.120-1.i386.rpm

Unflaging as out-of-date.

venusiant commented on 2014-09-27 10:59

Hi,

Google released a new Chrome and the URL changed.

In line 18 of PKGBUILD you can change the source URL (for x86_64). I used https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm .

You must also change line 19 with the new sha, it is 74fdf78ca65f117987a43e71f896a8eb7605a6d2 .

The above is fo x86_64, if you are using i686 you should change lines lines 20 and 21.

I would submit a patch but I'm not sure what the protocol is for AUR, I only installed Arch today.

gdmsl commented on 2014-09-27 09:15

I can't compile this package...

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-36.0.1985.125-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

tancrackers commented on 2014-09-22 13:45

It seems that the Sackware patch is related to this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/1371274
and therefore this:
https://github.com/scheib/chromium/blob/master/third_party/widevine/cdm/widevine_cdm.gyp

Should work imo

ava1ar commented on 2014-09-22 00:23

@CReimer

Thanks for sharing the link - I will try it and post update soon.

CReimer commented on 2014-09-20 10:27

Do you work on providing the widevine plugin?

It seems to work for Slackware --> http://www.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/chromium-widevine-plugin/build/chromium-widevine-plugin.SlackBuild

ava1ar commented on 2014-09-18 03:42

@bluerider

They are the same. tarball package name same as pkgbase. This is splitted package, so it may contain multiple pkgnames.

@korrode

I will move pepper-flash into the separate package and merge this back to it, but a bit later.

bluerider commented on 2014-09-18 01:41

While working on a new AUR helper, I noticed that your package's tarball url has a different name from the actual package. Is there a specific reason for that?

korrode commented on 2014-09-10 03:36

Since libpdf got integrated into the official chromium package, is there any reason to keep this as split package? (considering it doesn't even create multiple packages now...)
Perhaps now change it back to just being a simple chromium-pepper-flash package.

I could understand the principle before of AUR helpers needing to be updated to properly support split packages, but it's a bit pointless to push that now...

ava1ar commented on 2014-09-09 18:27

New version is out. PKGBUILD updated.

x-yuri commented on 2014-09-09 18:16

makepkg says: "Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-37.0.2062.94-1.x86_64.rpm". Is there a way to fix it?

truongap commented on 2014-09-08 08:44

How to hide mouse cursor?

WorMzy commented on 2014-09-04 09:30

Then you should file bug reports against these AUR helpers. There is nothing wrong with the PKGBUILD.

BrainwreckedTech commented on 2014-09-04 02:55

What's scewing up the helpers is that split packaging isn't used very often in the AUR, so $pkgbase is not specified and therefore $pkgbase=$pkgname. Queries to the AUR API succeed on $pkgname and the helpers then look for aur.archlinux.org/packages/${pkgname:0:2}/$pkgname/$pkgname.tar.gz instead of looking at $pkgbase.

BrainwreckedTech commented on 2014-09-04 01:50

So why does $pkgbase have to be specified as something different from $pkgname?

What's scewing up the helpers is that 99.9999....% of the time, $pkgbase is not specified and therefore $pkgbase=$pkgname. Queries to the AUR API succeed on $pkgname and the helpers then look for aur.archlinux.org/packages/${pkgname:0:2}/$pkgname/$pkgname.tar.gz.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-30 20:21

@test0

I can't remove those, you should write to AUR mailing list to clean them up. Actually it is very strange that they are still there and prevents some AUR helpers from work.

test0 commented on 2014-08-30 20:18

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-plugins/PKGBUILD is the PKGBUILD that is linked from this very page. However, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-pepper-flash/PKGBUILD still exists. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-libpdf/PKGBUILD does, too.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-30 20:13

@test0

What do you mean? What old versions and were you want them be removed from?

test0 commented on 2014-08-30 19:16

Can the old versions of this package be removed? Some AUR helpers seem to pull those.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-28 00:57

@kfgz

Since libpdf is gone, no need to reinstall pepper-flash on chrome version change, if pepper flash version itself wasn't changed, like this time.

kfgz commented on 2014-08-27 21:19

Hi,

Ava1ar, you forgot to bump pkgrel.

kfgz commented on 2014-08-27 21:18

Hi,

Ava1ar, you forgot to bump pkgver.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 14:56

@rosensvv

Splitted package is really convinient to add/remove plugins from the pacjage: no need to file requests, easy to update and manage. If pepper-flash will remain as single plugin, I will reupload it again as separate one, but I still want to make widevine cdm DRM plugin work with chromium (i.e. to make Netflix working in chromium w/o additional efforts).

rosensvv commented on 2014-08-27 14:52

@ ava1ar

You're right, I'm sorry, I shouldve manually checked whether the links worked. Its probably my AUR helper's fault, but strangely with the other links it works, same PKGBUILD. Also, why is this still a split package now that libpdf comes with chromium?

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 13:22

@rosensvv

PKGBUILD is working fine and all URLs are correct and reason that something not working for you is that you either doing something wrong or using some crappy AUR client which failed to work correctly with the splitted PKGBUILDs. Please, before reporting the not working links be sure to download tarball with PKGBUILD, unpack it and run makepkg.

About the _current_ links to the latest version, I already explained why I do not like this approach with pointing to the who-knows-what version.

rosensvv commented on 2014-08-27 12:54

@ava1ar

Why wont you update the .rpm links in the PKGBUILD? The current links dont work and the package fails to build. Am I getting something wrong or has google changed its package naming scheme and DL links? The ones that I found and seem to be working are:
for the x86_64 rpm: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
and for the i686 rpm: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 05:30

All,

I updated the package to use chrome 37. libpdf now part of the chromium itself, so it is gone from plugins list. New widevine-cdm plugins will be added soon if I manage to make it work with chromium (it allows watching DRM video, i.e. Netflix).

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 05:25

@frownlee

Did you make widevine work with chromium? I played with it for an hour but had no luck make chromium load and use it correctly. Do you have positive experience with this?

thestinger commented on 2014-08-27 04:50

Google open-sourced the PDF plugin as pdfium so it's now included in our Chromium package, as you noticed.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 03:47

@qwerty12

Looks like libpdf was included into chromium starting from v37, at least I see it here: https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/chromium&id=11da9ec2cf4dfc2d2a134876ce3fb1692e293a8a. So, looks like I will remove libpdf from the package.

qwerty12 commented on 2014-08-27 03:27

chromium 37.0.2062.94-1 provides /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so now. I have no idea what the future of the chromium-libpdf is but I do know that you do have to remove it in order to upgrade from 36.0.1985.143-1.

Rhinoceros commented on 2014-08-27 02:04

@CupIvan and @ava1ar

I absolutely agree that this has to source the Google package. I would not be happy using this package if it sourced a third-party location.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 01:46

@WorMzy

Thanks for doing assistance here, appreciate this!

@donallen

Looks like something is messed up in your setup. Event without looking into details, I suggest simply remove everything related to chromium and chromium itself, then install chromium and only then install plugins - this should resolve any issues you have. If no, please let us know and I and other people here will try help you resolve your problems.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-27 01:39

@CupIvan

Google generally do not allow doing this (redistributing chrome plugins outside chrome packages). Another issue is how can you trust the software from 3rd party location when installing in your system?

WorMzy commented on 2014-08-26 15:12

They are added to the file as part of the .install script that is run when you install the chromium-pepper-flash package. If you install chromium /after/ you install the chromium-pepper-flash package, you will need to re-install the chromium-pepper-flash package, or modify the file manually. You didn't need to remove the packages and build them again...

Unfortunately, it looks as though Chrome has just updated to 37.0.2062.94, so the old download links have been removed and the PKGBUILD will need to be updated.

donallen commented on 2014-08-26 14:56

@WorMzy Those options were not present. Are they documented somewhere?

Frustrated by the problems with this, I removed the two packages built by chromium-plugins and since I built them in /tmp and have since rebooted, I need to start from scratch to test your suggestion. Except I can't rebuild them:

ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-36.0.1985.143-1.x86_64.rpm

I realize this is AUR, but this whole thing is really a mess. I'm just going to use Firefox when I need flash. Thanks for trying ...

WorMzy commented on 2014-08-26 12:51

Check your /etc/chromium/default, and make sure that you have the following in your CHROMIUM_FLAGS declaration:

--ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=14.0.0.177

donallen commented on 2014-08-26 12:08

I am seeing the same problem described by matrs. And yes, I have built and installed both packages:

dca@franz:/tmp/chromium-plugins$ pacman -Q | grep chrom
chromium 36.0.1985.143-1
chromium-libpdf 1:36.0.1985.143-1
chromium-pepper-flash 1:14.0.0.177-1

After the install, I restarted chromium and flash still does not work. There is no mention of a flash or pepper-flash package on the chrome://plugins page.

matrs commented on 2014-08-25 23:07

ok,im gonna check it, btw im using packer-color

Thanks

WorMzy commented on 2014-08-25 19:44

It's a split package, makepkg will make two packages from it. By the sound of it, you (or your AUR helper) are only installing chromium-libpdf, you need to install chromium-pepper-flash if you want the flash plugin.

matrs commented on 2014-08-25 19:25

I don't understand something, this package isn't installing chromium-pepper-flash on my system, only chromium-libpdf, I tried three times but it always did the same. After downloading the whole package, it only shows :
Packages (1): chromium-libpdf-1:36.0.1985.143-1

I have google-chrome and chromium installed, chrome has pepper-flash working but after installation of this package there isn't a flash plugin installed in chromium (chrome://plugins/ checked)

CupIvan commented on 2014-08-25 08:07

it's strange to download 58Mb(!) of rpm package Google Chrome and copy only two files to make a package
can you upload libpdf.so and PepperFlash/* to github and correct PKGBUILD? it will be great!

naraesk commented on 2014-08-22 22:38

same here, 404 failure when trying to download the rpm mentioned by atomopawn

atomopawn commented on 2014-08-21 20:41

Fails while downloading chrome again.

ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-36.0.1985.125-1.x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-20 17:32

@snovik

Looks like you have conflicted package installed. Please execute
pacman -Qo /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
and post the output.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-20 17:32

@snovik

Looks like you have conflicted package installed. Please execute
pacman -Qo /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
and post the output.

snovik commented on 2014-08-20 17:30

is it only me?

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
chromium-libpdf: /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-20 17:03

I will make install script safer for users who installing plugins but do not have chromium/chrome installed.

WorMzy commented on 2014-08-20 15:01

If you don't have Chromium installed, the .install file will not executed correctly. It's not a fatal error and can be ignored.

konig commented on 2014-08-20 14:51

@even

Are you using a wrapper to install the package like packer for example?

even commented on 2014-08-20 13:53

I'm getting this problem when tried to install that:

cat: : No such file or directory
sed: can't read : No such file or directory
error: command failed to execute correctly

felipec commented on 2014-08-17 22:42

Never mind, I was using chrome-pepper-flash instead of chrome-plugins.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-17 22:37

@frownlee

I will add it, with next update.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-17 22:36

@felipec
You have old PKGBUILD, current version pointing to version 36.0.1985.143. How are you installing it?

felipec commented on 2014-08-17 22:28

ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-35.0.1916.114-1.x86_64.rpm

frownlee commented on 2014-08-16 20:47

@ava1ar

Yes, it's part of current stable. It's used for the DRM portion of the Encrypted Media Extensions. Using this the current chrome beta can play Netflix natively using HTML5 (relying on this and WebCrypto which is OSS and lands in 37).

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-16 17:42

@frownlee

Is it part of current stable chrome? What is it used for?

frownlee commented on 2014-08-16 17:35

Is it possible to add the widevine drm module (libwidevinecdm.so, libwidevinecdmadapter.so) to chromium?

sknd commented on 2014-08-15 08:30

ok, yaourt did it wothout problem :)

konig commented on 2014-08-15 08:24

@sknd

That means that packer's split package issue still has not been resolved. Install the package by hand.

sknd commented on 2014-08-15 08:07

today, right after succesful installation, when i try packer -Syu, it want's to install this package again, like there was already new version...

konig commented on 2014-08-13 05:36

@Rhinoceros

There was a packer issue like you say, but it has been fixed a few days back though.
The error is still there when I tried to update this morning. Anyway, good thing this package does not have multiple dependencies...

ArchLinus commented on 2014-08-13 01:18

Ghul's url worked, the maintaner says updated now but i just wanted to clear up the work around. I installed it with pacaur, keep in mind that the sum is going to be different if the PKGBUILD hasn't changed. I just put skip in it since the file came from google.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-13 00:06

Package updated.

GI_Jack commented on 2014-08-12 21:34

apologies, I am using packer, and AUR wrapper. it otherwise installs


now having errors with the download link.

Ghul commented on 2014-08-12 21:26

Installation failed with the provided google-chrome rpm source ( was not found ). Replaced it by https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm and then installation worked fine.

Ghul commented on 2014-08-12 21:25

Installation failed with the provided google-chrome rpm source ( was not found ). Replaced it by https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm and then installation fine.

Rhinoceros commented on 2014-08-12 17:14

And this update from 2 days ago titled "split pkgbuilds".
https://github.com/keenerd/packer/commit/b75405bce2cc3e51178d9e373ebe0f13f425d466

Rhinoceros commented on 2014-08-12 17:02

@konig

Packer can't do split packages. https://github.com/keenerd/packer/issues/125#issuecomment-51707474
It might have been fixed in the recent update though. Pacaur works fine for me.

konig commented on 2014-08-12 15:53

@ava1ar

I'm using packer for example and getting the exact same error as GI_Jack.
Building it manually fixes the issue, although it sort of defies the idea of a AUR wrapper.

regards,

konig commented on 2014-08-12 15:43

@ava1ar

I'm using packer for example and getting the exact same error as GI_Jack.

regards,

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-12 01:29

@GI_Jack

how you are building the packages? Manually or using some AUR helper? Please provide more information in order to get help.

GI_Jack commented on 2014-08-12 01:26

==> Finished making: chromium-plugins 36.0.1985.125-2 (Mon Aug 11 21:23:34 EDT 2014)
loading packages...
error: 'chromium-libpdf-36.0.1985.125-2*.pkg.tar.xz': could not find or read package
error: 'chromium-pepper-flash-36.0.1985.125-2*.pkg.tar.xz': could not find or read package

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-11 01:24

@busyjay

Duplicate packages are not welcomed in AUR and adding chromium-plugins package without withdrawing libpdf and pepper-flash is basically duplication. Also this is more difficult to maintain comparing to splitted package (now I need to maintain one PKGBUILD versus three in case of 3 separate packages).

busyjay commented on 2014-08-10 05:51

@ava1ar, maybe splitted packages is a good feature, but I guess leave the original package along and create a new package, like chromium-plugins, may be more acceptable and clear.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-09 19:12

@gim

First of all it is more correct way to organize such things and this is how such things are done in Arch repos. Recently with adding support of splitted packages, AUR users and maintainers can also benefit from this feature.

People who download packages from AUR manually or using simple AUR helpers (which download and prepare files for building) already got benefits, since both packages are now handled with one PKGBUILD and they can easily build/install/update packages they want in one run without need to deal with them individually.

Unfortunately, more advanced AUR tools (like yaourt) are not yet support splitted packages in a way they should, so their users may got a step backward in usability when using one splitted package instead of two separate packages, but as I said in my previous post, this support will be added soon.

I understand that switching to splitted package may be a bit frustrating for some users, but just only because their tools not up to date yet. From all other point of views, moving to splitted packages is much more modern and correct way to maintain such type of software and I expect it will be used wider and wider with the course of time.

gim commented on 2014-08-09 18:59

ava1ar, what is the advantage of this? Why couldn't just leave it as it was before?

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-09 18:35

yaourt users may now have a couple of inconveniences, since splitted packages support is on early stage. Here are some notes:

1. If you want to install one packages from two available, you will need to pass --pkg option with package name to yaourt along with -S option:
yaourt --pkg chromium-libpdf -S chromium-libpdf
instead of just
yaourt -S chromium-libpdf
because second command will install all sub-packages from splitted package. Here is the bug for this: https://github.com/archlinuxfr/yaourt/issues/50

2. During upgrade yaourt will build and install all sub-packages and install them for every sub-package in splitted package - this also is a result of bug mentioned above.

So,

- if you are using both chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdf and don't care about downloading chrome installer several times (like I am), you are OK and yaourt bugs will not affect you;

- if you are using both chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdfif you want to upgrade both plugins using one copy of chrome installer, update just one of the plugins, it will update both. Do not update them both together, because currently yaourt will download sources for every sup-package;

- if you are using only one package (or want to install just one package), you will need to provide additional --pkg <package_name> parameter for yaourt for installation and do not upgrade you package automatically using yaourt -Syu (if you do, second plugin will also be installed).

All this sound inconvenient, but this is how yaourt works right now. I will keep everybody updated about yaourt improvements and will try to contribute to it myself.

digitalone commented on 2014-08-09 18:25

It works to me.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-09 17:44

@gourdcaptain

It was converted to splitted package for chromium-libpdf/chromium-pepper-flash. If you installed it previously, install chromium-libpdf/chromium-pepper-flash - now they are build from one source and do not require downloading chrome installer for every package. Please let me know if you have difficulties.

gourdcaptain commented on 2014-08-09 17:25

The chromium-plugins package is missing (it shows up in google searches, but isn't there on the AUR servers indicating recent removal). What's up with that?

digitalone commented on 2014-08-09 16:56

I agree with this solution.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-09 16:30

Yes, I was waiting for merging before upload this one.

Anybody using yaourt for installing split packages? Looks like it can only install all packages from the pkgbase, not the selected one - looks like I need to look into yaourt sources and add this feature :)

Rhinoceros commented on 2014-08-09 16:21

Yep, I just wanted to let you know that you could upload the split packages. (I presumed you were waiting for the merge.) Thanks for doing that.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-09 16:17

Don't worry, guys.

chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdf are not a separate packages anymore, but part of the chromium-plugins pkgbase.

Rhinoceros commented on 2014-08-09 10:36

Hi, just wanted to mention that chromium-pepper-flash has disappeared from the AUR now. Thanks.

Scimmia commented on 2014-08-07 23:00

Yep, you got it.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-07 17:12

OK, got it, thanks. I am going yo use chromium-plugins as a pkgbase. So, now I am requesting merging of chromium-libpdf and chromium-pepper-flash to this package. As soon as merge is done, I will upload splitted package instead of this one.

@Scimmia
Can you please confirm this is correct sequence?

Scimmia commented on 2014-08-07 17:09

The AUR will not allow you to overwrite the packages with a separate package. What pkgbase did you use? If you didn't define it, it will be the first package listed in the pkgname array. You will need to request that the other packages be merged into whatever one you will use as the new pkgbase, then upload the new PKGBUILD.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-07 17:03

OK, I created a splitted package and ready to upload it. One question I have is what to do with original packages (chromium-libpdf and chromium-pepper-flash)? Should I remove them before uploading new one? Or I can upload splitted package first and then take care of old ones?

Scimmia commented on 2014-08-06 15:09

One of mine: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/el/elementary-git/PKGBUILD

Simply put, you define pkgname as an array and make seperate package functions.

victorz commented on 2014-08-06 15:06

I found this: https://www.archlinux.org/pacman/PKGBUILD.5.html#_package_splitting

I hope that helps you!

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-06 15:01

@Scimmia

I will think about converting this to split PKGBUILD. Can you actually give me links to such packages in AUR, so I can take a look how it is implemented?

Scimmia commented on 2014-08-06 13:46

Maintaining duplicate packages in the AUR is strongly frowned upon, as in one or the other WILL end up being deleted. Pick one method or the other, or make it a split PKGBUILD.

digitalone commented on 2014-08-06 07:19

Great idea! :-)

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-06 06:13

This package includes both chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdf for those who using both and want to install/update them together.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-06 06:09

I just uploaded new package: chromium-plugins: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-plugins which has both chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdf plugins in one package. I will continue to maintain all 3 packages.

ava1ar commented on 2014-08-06 06:09

I just uploaded new package: chromium-plugins: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-plugins which has both chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-libpdf plugins in one package. I will continue to maintain all 3 packages.

tengo commented on 2014-08-02 15:27

@test0: After building one package you can copy the downloaded file to the other package's folder.

test0 commented on 2014-07-22 00:02

@ava1ar: would you consider creating a package that installs both pepper-flash and libpdf ? This way people that have both installed can download Chrome only once.

imp commented on 2014-07-18 03:37

@avalar Turns out I was using an out of date package, thanks.

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-18 03:33

@imp
How do you installing packages from AUR? Using yaourt or other helper tool? Or manually? PKGBUILD now has link to chrome 36 and your error shows that you still trying to use 35, so you are not using latest version.
Please provide more details and I will try help you.

imp commented on 2014-07-18 03:31

I keep getting

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-35.0.1916.153-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-16 19:59

Updated to new major version.

dkremer commented on 2014-07-16 19:53

Here it's the same as chromium-pepper-flash, the correct download link is :

source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${CARCH}.rpm)

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-16 19:52

New major chrome version is out, package updated.

dkremer commented on 2014-07-16 19:46

PKGBUILD is outdated. Here is a diff that works for me :

--- PKGBUILD~ 2014-06-16 17:49:11.000000000 +0200
+++ PKGBUILD 2014-07-16 21:42:55.988264072 +0200
@@ -15,12 +15,11 @@
source=(license.html::http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html)
sha1sums=('SKIP')
if [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ]; then
- source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.x86_64.rpm)
sha1sums+=('0a39ec5296d90869ea211412c6197c57759f52d7')
elif [ "$CARCH" == i686 ]; then
- source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.i386.rpm)
sha1sums+=('feed8f8d6bc5761d8ddf98435169668a64243bd6')
fi
+source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${CARCH}.rpm)

package() {
install -d "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/PepperFlash"

orschiro commented on 2014-07-16 05:51

@ipm

Thanks for your feedback!

In the meantime I switched to the free HTML5 viewer and see no reasons to switch back. :)

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdf-viewer/oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm

ipm commented on 2014-07-15 16:13

@orschiro

I had this issue. For me it was resolved by removing the old version of libpdf (which on my system was chromium-libpdf-stable) and installing this package.

ipm commented on 2014-07-15 15:47

@orschiro

Yes I'm experiencing the same issue.

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-15 00:17

@MrBougo
Thanks for sharing this.

If somebody wants version 14.0.0.145 right now, manually update PKGBUILD for this package. Here is a sample: https://privatepaste.com/d867c91156

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-15 00:03

@MrBougo,

Current version is already 14.0.0.125, I don't think it is a big difference to get plugin from dev build, since plugin's version is the same. I don't think version 14.0.0.145 was ever released, let's wait for chrome update.

MrBougo commented on 2014-07-14 18:15

@ava1ar, here's a useful link I think: someone has taken the Linux release of 14.0.0.145 from beta builds of Chrome:

http://bovitron.com/blogostu/2014/07/10/installing-pepperflash-14-0-0-145-for-chrome-35-0-1916-153-on-slackware-14-1/

scottmuz commented on 2014-07-10 11:44

Does anyone else get an error "Showckwave Flash has crashed" when accessing http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com ?

My system details:
~>pacman -Qs chromium
local/chromium 35.0.1916.153-1
The open-source project behind Google Chrome, an attempt at creating a safer, faster, and more stable browser
local/chromium-pepper-flash 14.0.0.125-2
Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)
~>uname -a
Linux murrayn 3.15.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jul 7 07:43:27 CEST 2014 i686 GNU/Linux
~>

scottmuz commented on 2014-07-10 11:42

I am using
chromium 35.0.1916.153-1
with chromium-pepper-flash 14.0.0.125-2

scottmuz commented on 2014-07-10 11:41

Does anyone else get an error "Showckwave Flash has crashed" when accessing http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com ?

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-10 01:07

Guys,

I understand you are worried about security, but for current moment as per my knowledge there is NO update available for Linux. If somebody knows where to get the update, let me know and I will update the package. But for now unflagging it.

hazey commented on 2014-07-09 21:15

Sometimes miss no edit feature on comments :P - Just reading around the security bulletin and etc. there is an update .145 as referenced below for linux on chrome, chrome will auto update flash to that version so I would assume this pkg will be updated as well to x.145 assuming they have already released it on chrome? Can see prior posted link and http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ as some have mentioned showing 14.0.0.145 is the latest for linux chrome as well, gotta love confusing upstream releases! Thanks in either case, hopefully clarifies some stuff

hazey commented on 2014-07-09 21:11

So wait just to clarify this big flash exploit that's running around, the current 14.0.0.125-2 does not apply, is that correct? Via upstream release log @ http://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsb14-17.html

"- Users of Adobe Flash Player 11.2.202.378 and earlier versions for Linux should update to Adobe Flash Player 11.2.202.394.
- Adobe Flash Player 14.0.0.125 installed with Google Chrome will automatically be updated to the latest Google Chrome version, which will include Adobe Flash Player 14.0.0.145 for Windows, Macintosh and Linux."

It seems from the changelog that there is also an update for linux, but that it comes with Chromium update? Or is the current version (this package) not apply? Somewhat confusing haha - I did receive an update for the normal flashplayer package but unsure of how this package is affected/applies. In either case thanks for maintaining!

headkase commented on 2014-07-08 23:29

On the Adobe "About Flash" page:

https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Linux

Mozilla, Firefox, SeaMonkey (Flash Player 11.2 is the last supported Flash Player version for Linux. Adobe will continue to provide security updates.) 11.2.202.394

Chrome (Pepper-based Flash Player) 14.0.0.145

Note the Chrome version number..

ava1ar commented on 2014-07-08 23:24

This update for Windows/Mac version only. Read here for details: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/07/flash-player-update.html

headkase commented on 2014-07-08 23:21

Flash Player is now version 14.0.0.145:

https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

But there is no Chrome release to go with it, it is a component update only:

http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/07/flash-player-update.html

So, I don't know what exactly you're going to do about this version..

Marking out-of-date.

progandy commented on 2014-06-24 09:28

You might want to add a small script like chromium-flashplayer-install-update that performs the sed in your installscript if you install chromium after pepper flash.

You can also skip the extraction of the whole chrome package like this:
if x64
noextract=(google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.x86_64.rpm)
else
noextract=(google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.i386.rpm)
fi
prepare() {
msg2 "Extract Pepper Flash..."
bsdtar -f "${noextract[@]}" -x opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash
}

gavra commented on 2014-06-19 07:00

I learned something new..
Thanks..

kula85 commented on 2014-06-17 06:28

Thank you so much. Keep up the good work.

WorMzy commented on 2014-06-16 16:07

Many thanks. :)

ava1ar commented on 2014-06-16 15:50

@WorMzy

Sounds reasonable, package updated - chromium is not listed as dependency anymore

WorMzy commented on 2014-06-16 13:27

Please could you consider dropping chromium as a dependency? It is not actually needed by the plugin (verified with namcap), and means that people have to install chromium as well if they want to use it in firefox (e.g. with freshplayerplugin). Thank you. :)

TimorLee commented on 2014-06-10 18:20

Works now, didn't expect it to be an out-of-date mirror, I'm used to problems where I messed up :D
Thanks for the quick reaction!

ava1ar commented on 2014-06-10 17:56

Package updated.

@TimorLee
Mark package out-of-date in such cases and I will take care about updating. Thanks!

TimorLee commented on 2014-06-10 17:47

Im getting this error:

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-35.0.1916.114-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

And I can't find another source for the rpm package. Ideas?

orschiro commented on 2014-06-07 09:20

@all

Can someone reproduce the issue that the search function does not find any search terms anymore?

See this screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/6uv0SAu.png

lira commented on 2014-05-29 17:02

Thanks for help, it's working after your explanation!

killermoehre commented on 2014-05-29 15:19

@lira

The -S switch for makepkg is explicit for creating a src-package suitable for upload to the AUR. you probably want »makepkg -si«. See »makepkg -h« and »man 8 makepkg«

lira commented on 2014-05-29 14:42

When I run the commands below it doesn't create the file "chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2-x86_64.pkg.tar".

$ curl -O https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-pepper-flash/chromium-pepper-flash.tar.gz
$ tar zxfv chromium-pepper-flash.tar.gz
$ cd chromium-pepper-flash
$ makepkg -S
after the command makepkg -S, the dependencies are downloaded
$ ls -lt
------
total 57496
-rw-r--r-- 1 lira lira 1182 May 29 10:47 chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2.src.tar.gz
drwxr-xr-x 2 lira lira 4096 May 29 10:47 src
-rw-r--r-- 1 lira lira 58803803 May 29 10:47 google-chrome-stable-35.0.1916.114-1.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 lira lira 52500 May 29 10:45 license.html
-rw-r--r-- 1 lira lira 1045 May 21 01:41 chromium-pepper-flash.install
-rw-r--r-- 1 lira lira 1301 May 21 01:41 PKGBUILD
------

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-29 03:40

@lira

How do you installing the package? Can you please write commands your are running here?
Your problem is that your are trying to install source package, instead of package itself. Correct package file is chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2-x86_64.pkg.tar

lira commented on 2014-05-28 21:48

When I try to install the package I get the wrong below:
sudo pacman -U chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2.src.tar.gz
loading packages...
error: missing package metadata in chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2.src.tar.gz
error: 'chromium-pepper-flash-13.0.0.214-2.src.tar.gz': invalid or corrupted package

What am I doing wrong?

korrode commented on 2014-05-27 23:38

@Vilius:
IIRC, it's license problems with shipping (distributing) pepper flash outside of Chrome.

For Manjaro's binary repos i'm considering a solution where the download and extraction of pepper flash is done at package install script time, not package build time (the likes of Debian have always done this with flash).

Once ready i'll offer the package up to Arch TU's/devs, whether or not they want to include it or something like it, idk.

Vilius commented on 2014-05-27 17:42

How likely is it to see this package in the official repositories soon? Installing from AUR is such a pain. I know. I'm lazy.
Are there any problems, which keep it from getting there. Or maybe some minimal amount of votes must be accumulated for that to happen? If so, then how many votes are required?

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-24 17:42

@tang0th67

Great news! Did anybody try building it from sources? I will try this weekend - will see what it is.

tang0th67 commented on 2014-05-22 09:54

The PDF plugin has been released as open source: https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/

Could this be built instead of extracting the pdf plugin from the chrome sources?

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-22 02:10

@sl1pkn07

Actually, you should mostly focus on chromium-pepper-flash-dev package, since it is taken exactly from chrome-dev package.

What about your request, I see 2 issues here:
1. I need to remove depends=('chromium'), which I don't really want to do
2. If you want to install chromium-dev separate from chromium from repo, in install script I should support possible case of having 2 chromium installed -> currently it is designed to process single instance.

Any advices? I will take a look at this on weekend, however I am open for your proposals for 2 above points.

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-05-21 10:32

@ava1ar

nope, because have modify chromium-dev for allow install chromium-dev from [AUR] and chromium from [extra] in same time. if add provides=('chromium') to chromium-dev, this create conflict between both packages, and i don't want this

greetings

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-21 04:42

Updated.

@sl1pkn07
I added /etc/chromium-dev/default support, but package requires 'chromium' for installation. Can you add provides=('chromium') for your chromium-dev package?

arwineap commented on 2014-05-21 04:10

Here's what I had to do to get it to work with 35.x on x86_64.
https://gist.github.com/arwineap/f491a3e67e49bcfb8ce1

These changes *should* work for 32 bit, but I haven't tested.

thestinger commented on 2014-05-21 03:03

I'm guessing that this is out-of-date now that 35.0.1916.114 has been released, but I'm too lazy to check :).

oval84 commented on 2014-05-20 21:53

Downloading google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.137-1.i386.rpm
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.137-1.i386.rpm
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-05-20 20:10

hi @ava1ar.

in the next version of chromium-dev, i've remove pepperflash include in the package and need adapt this package to use this package. you can adapt the .install to handle (add/remove pepperflash flags) /etc/chromium-dev/default?

remember i've make changes in chromium-dev package to use chormium from [extra] in same time

greetings

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-05-20 20:09

hi @Ner0.

in the next version of chromium-dev, i've remove pepperflash include in the package and need adapt this package to use this package. you can adapt the .install to handle (add/remove pepperflash flags) /etc/chromium-dev/default?

remember i've make changes in chromium-dev package to use chormium from [extra] in same time

greetings

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-05-20 17:14

hi @ava1ar.

in the next version of chromium-dev, i've remove pepperflash include in the package and start to use this package. you can adapt the .install to handle (add/remove pepperflash flags) /etc/chromium-dev/default?

remember i've make changes in chromium-dev package to use chormium from [extra] in same time

greetings

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-05-20 17:11

hi @ava1ar.

in the next version of chromium-dev, i've remove pepperflash include in the package and start to use this package. you can adapt the .install to handle (add/remove pepperflash flags) /etc/chromium-dev/default?

greetings

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-14 00:19

Updated

ava1ar commented on 2014-05-14 00:19

Updated

adalardo commented on 2014-05-13 22:27

New Version out:
sha1sum google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.137-1.x86_64.rpm

893910f881230892c318801807b1949aa5962cb7 google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.137-1.x86_64.rpm

Change PKGBUILD lines:

pkgver=34.0.1847.137
...
sha1sums+=('893910f881230892c318801807b1949aa5962cb7')

adalardo commented on 2014-05-13 22:16

Version 34.0.1847.137 out

2508b2d8e0dfbfd29b88768149465c74 google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.137-1.x86_64.rpm

thiagowfx commented on 2014-05-13 21:58

Error: 404 not found

AgentE382 commented on 2014-05-13 20:40

I used: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-${_channel}_current_x86_64.rpm

It works fine.

ehs0329 commented on 2014-04-24 21:30

Flagged as out-of-date because a new version of Google Chrome released. Latest stable version should be 34.0.1847.132-1 for Linux. It also includes a flash player update to 13.0.0.206.

dogonthehorizon commented on 2014-04-24 18:43

Hi there, it appears that the URL scheme that this package is using is no longer valid as of this morning for downloading google-chrome, therefore this package fails to build.

I spent a few minutes searching for an updated link but have come up with zilch. I need to switch to a few different tasks but I wanted to let you know here in case you can find a solution before I do :)

Cheers!

computerquip commented on 2014-04-17 02:15

I seem to be getting issues concerning missing re2. Is this meant to be a dependency?

olive commented on 2014-04-10 20:46

@ava1a. Yes, this is in order. I have just read /usr/bin/chromium that take care of that and execute the real chromium; it is indeed what happen. I just didn't think about it until you mention /etc/chromium/default.

ava1ar commented on 2014-04-10 19:38

May be in case CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS variable defined, chromium ignores CHROMIUM_FLAGS from /etc/chromium/default config. I suggest putting all custom stuff you need to CHROMIUM_FLAGS and do not use CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS.

olive commented on 2014-04-10 18:23

@ava1ar. OK, this is partly my fault. I used the variable CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS to add some custom flags. But this variable override /etc/chromium/default and was not picked in my case.

ava1ar commented on 2014-04-10 17:58

@olive

CHROMIUM_FLAGS variable is updated by package in /etc/chromium/default config, so chromium picking up plugin correctly. What chromium package do you use? one from extra?

olive commented on 2014-04-10 16:13

Chromium does not pick up the location of the plugin by default. It works if I launch chromium as:
chromium --ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
(we can put this in CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS environment variable).

olive commented on 2014-04-10 16:13

Chromium do not pick up the location of the plugin by default. It works if I launch chromium as:
chromium --ppapi-flash-path=/usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so
(we can put this in CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS environment variable).

korrode commented on 2014-04-09 08:40

Hope this new version fixes up the dodginess that's been present since the last update. :<

svg1234 commented on 2014-04-08 21:11

267b00890bbde132eba5f049ffdb855b6991d0bf google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.116-1.i386.rpm

big_gie commented on 2014-04-08 18:35

Version 34.0.1847.116 is out.
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.hu/2014/04/stable-channel-update.html
sha1sum google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.116-1.x86_64.rpm
3f40384777fa13c72759fd9e492e2aaaf43fc89a google-chrome-stable-34.0.1847.116-1.x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-03-15 06:26

I will add replaces=() directive back to the package to avoid such situations in future.

ashwin_cse commented on 2014-03-15 06:24

@ava1ar Thanks. I followed your suggestion and now it works. By the way, I think maintaining same package name would be helpful.

ava1ar commented on 2014-03-15 06:00

You have chromium-pepper-flash-stable intalled - this is old name and version of this package. Before installing recent version, remove old one
pacman -Rsn chromium-pepper-flash-stable
and then install new one, which is chromium-pepper-flash.

ashwin_cse commented on 2014-03-15 05:56

Version chromium-pepper-flash-12.0.0.77-2 doesnt work for me. My OS arch is x86_64. When i try to install , i get the following error:

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
chromium-pepper-flash: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so exists in filesystem
chromium-pepper-flash: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

I have previous version of pepper flash installed

[chromium-pepper-flash]# pacman -Qs flash
local/chromium-pepper-flash-stable 2:11.9.900.170-1
Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)

Why pacmam -U ./chromium-pepper-flash-12.0.0.77-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz not working on my pc? Is there a bug with this version? I dont see others having this problem in my google searches . I think that maybe because , the package is update today ?? (quote from pkg details in this page :"Last Updated: 2014-03-15 02:19" )

ashwin_cse commented on 2014-03-15 05:55

Version chromium-pepper-flash-12.0.0.77-2 doesnt work for me. My OS arch is x86_64. When i try to install , i get the following error:

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
chromium-pepper-flash: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so exists in filesystem
chromium-pepper-flash: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

I have previous version of pepper flash installed

[chromium-pepper-flash]# pacman -Qs flash
local/chromium-pepper-flash-stable 2:11.9.900.170-1
Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)

Why pacmam -U ./chromium-pepper-flash-12.0.0.77-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz working on my pc? Is there a bug with this version? I dont see others having this problem in my google searches . I think that maybe because , the package is update today ?? (qoute from pkg details in this page :"Last Updated: 2014-03-15 02:19" )

Jishnu commented on 2014-03-11 19:09

https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.146-1.i386.rpm

giving error. currently it is at version 33.0.1750.149

svg1234 commented on 2014-02-22 07:17

bluerider: I read that pepper was updated by google with the security patches. Hence the updated version 33.0.1750.117-1.

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-22 03:31

@bluerider
pepperflash is independent from adobe's flash player, it has its own release cycle and different plugin architecture. So this CVE is not related to pepperflash.

bluerider commented on 2014-02-22 03:29

I just read there was a security advisory for flash (didn't mention pepper flash). Arch Linux just pushed an updated flash; is there an update for pepper-flash?

http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-0502

kamelie1706 commented on 2014-02-21 15:57

Thanks i686 build working now out of the box

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-21 03:18

Updated

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-21 03:16

Updated.

hazey commented on 2014-02-21 03:09

For 64bit versions:
change verbld to: 33.0.1750.117-1 (changing 115 to 117)
change its sha1sum to: 69ffd48d852bcd1796e37edda4ae64c72af66599

svg1234 commented on 2014-02-21 02:09

This works

456719260dc98ef3665fd80c3088c6cb82181245
google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.117-1.i386.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 22:13

@Det
This is almost what I am doing now.

Det commented on 2014-02-20 22:09

@ava1ar, if the Chrome Releases blog isn't synched up, you can easily find out the current versions with:

$ curl -s https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/repodata/other.xml.gz | gzip -df | awk -F\" '/pkgid/{ sub(".*-","",$4); print $4": "$10 }'

wooptoo commented on 2014-02-20 19:50

Won't build, wrong URL.

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 18:25

@ava1ar : Where are you getting the checksums from? I just manually calculated it myself.

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 18:20

@bluerider you know, I would better prefer 404 error over checksum error. But actually I hate google's approach with removing previous version after releasing new one.

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 18:17

@ava1ar : Why not just use the 'current' url and update the pkgrel everytime there's an update?

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 18:04

bluerider,

correct url is inside my PKGBUILD, you do not need to change it at all. All you need to do is update pkgver variable with current chrome build number and update checksums accordingly. That's it.

How to get current chrome build number? This is tricky - I am using one trick. Will post it here later today - I do not have my Linux laptop with me at the office.

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 17:59

@ava1ar : I can't find the non "current" download myself. It's not optimal, perhaps someone should contact the Chrome devs to find out if there's an alternate url.

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 17:47

Scimmia,

I will update package later today. Btw, new version is 33.0.1750.117, so just change pkgver and fix checksum to get a new build.

bluerider,
I don't like url, pointing to the "current" version, because you never know what current version is, unless you download and install it.

Scimmia commented on 2014-02-20 17:31

bluerider, you can't get rid of the epoch. Once it's there, it's there to stay.

Is there no versioned download anymore? That's preferable to simple a "current" rpm.

rabcor commented on 2014-02-20 17:14

Thanks blue, the new url solved my problem.

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 17:10

Your package does not build, please use the following PKGBUILD (it is modified from yours) :

# Contributor: Mark <mark@markelee.com>
# Maintainer : ava1ar <mail(at)ava1ar(dot)info>

pkgname=chromium-libpdf
pkgdesc="Google Chrome's PDF plugin for Chromium (stable version)"
pkgver=33.0.1750.115
pkgrel=1
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="https://www.google.com/chrome"
license=('custom:chrome')
depends=('chromium')
conflicts=('chromium-libpdf-dev' 'chromium-libpdf-stable')
install='chromium-libpdf.install'
source=(license.html::https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html)
sha256sums=('SKIP')

if [ "$CARCH" == 'x86_64' ]; then
source+=('https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm')
sha256sums+=('f0a5306f2ab379947afe961482eab85e346e7c2010021d5b4d4eccfa365fab8e')
elif
[ "$CARCH" == 'i686' ]; then
source+=('https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm')
sha256sums+=('5f15dc9ff5881d805e891337ba968f7142794f618b5d080ca3e2c0827a05dfeb')
fi;

package() {
install -d "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/chromium"
install -m644 opt/google/chrome/libpdf.so "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/chromium"
install -Dm644 "${srcdir}/license.html" "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/license.html"
}

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 17:03

Your package still doesn't build because it cannot fetch the source. You should see the changes I made in chromium-pepper-flash (your other package) to make it work.

For this package you require /opt/google/chrome/lib/libpdf.so, it is now located in /opt/google/chrome/libpdf.so

bluerider commented on 2014-02-20 16:58

I made a couple of changes to your PKGBUILD (mostly cosmetic to get rid of not used functions, changed the url for the source) :

# Contributor: Mark <mark@markelee.com>
# Maintainer : ava1ar <mail(at)ava1ar(dot)info>

pkgname=chromium-pepper-flash
pkgdesc="Google Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin for Chromium (stable version)"
pkgver=12.0.0.70
pkgrel=1
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="https://www.google.com/chrome"
license=('custom:chrome')
depends=('chromium')
conflicts=('chromium-pepper-flash-dev' 'chromium-pepper-flash-stable')
optdepends=('pulseaudio-alsa: For PulseAuduio users')
install=chromium-pepper-flash.install
source=(license.html::https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html)
sha256sums=('SKIP')

if [ "$CARCH" == 'x86_64' ]; then
source+=('https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm')
sha256sums+=('f0a5306f2ab379947afe961482eab85e346e7c2010021d5b4d4eccfa365fab8e')
elif
[ "$CARCH" == 'i686' ]; then
source+=('https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm')
sha256sums+=('5f15dc9ff5881d805e891337ba968f7142794f618b5d080ca3e2c0827a05dfeb')
fi;

package() {
install -d "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/PepperFlash"
install -m644 opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/* "${pkgdir}/usr/lib/PepperFlash"
sed -i "s/flashver=.*/flashver=${pkgver}/" "${startdir}/chromium-pepper-flash.install"
install -Dm644 "${srcdir}/license.html" "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/license.html"
}

rabcor commented on 2014-02-20 15:44

Won't build

--
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.115-1.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash.
--

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 03:57

Package updated

xatierlike commented on 2014-02-20 03:53

Same issue as zzatkin (404).

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-32.0.1700.107-1.x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-02-20 03:44

Package updated

josherick commented on 2014-02-20 00:28

Same issue as zzatkin (404).

kamelie1706 commented on 2014-02-19 19:00

for i686, what is the MD5 ....

tumas commented on 2014-02-03 18:56

Google Chrome has a new link / sha1sum:
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
f2d25e71b66c6c07786d8e37c35ecb9799fd15ef (for 64bit)

pls update

tumas commented on 2014-02-03 18:56

Google Chrome has a new link / sha1sum:
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
f2d25e71b66c6c07786d8e37c35ecb9799fd15ef

pls update

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-28 02:22

Updated

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-28 02:22

Updated

zzatkin commented on 2014-01-27 22:26

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-32.0.1700.77-1.x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-24 23:57

This package is going to be merged into chromium-pepper-flash package, which is now represents stable version of chromium-pepper-flash plugin. For dev version, install chromium-pepper-flash-dev package.

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-24 23:51

jstjohn, I am trying to contact current chromium-pepper-flash maintainer to make such switch happen.

jstjohn commented on 2014-01-23 19:59

Will this package be getting renamed to "chromium-pepper-flash", similar to the recent rename of "chromium-libpdf"?

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-20 03:32

bsdson,

This plugins included into Google Chrome, so it is needed only for chromium. This is why chromium is marked as a dependency.

bsdson commented on 2014-01-20 03:31

excuse me, ava1ar,
this package seems to work with Google Chrome.
should the dependency on chromium be removed?
BR,
Henry

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-18 19:02

UPDATE. This package is going to be merged to chromium-libpdf package, which is now used for stable version of libpdf. Development version moved to chromium-libpdf-dev.

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-18 19:00

UPDATE. This package now points to stable version of libpdf. To use development version, please use chromium-libpdf-dev package.

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-17 12:49

Adopted, I will upload PKGBUILD for current stable version of libpdf on weekend.

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-17 04:32

Hi! I am current maintainer of chromium-libpdf-stable and ready to adopt this package.

ava1ar commented on 2014-01-17 04:31

I am ready to adopt this package and upload stable version.

ArchFwin commented on 2014-01-15 14:21

Yeah, I realised that a few minutes later.

I've emailed him something similar to that comment, and have uploaded 'chromium-libpdf-dev' now.

danyf90 commented on 2014-01-15 14:19

Hi,
thank you for your rapid response, I'm not the maintainer of chromium-libpdf-stable, you should contact him to find the best way to do this,

ArchFwin commented on 2014-01-15 14:11

What is the best way to go about doing this?

I can upload chromium-libpdf-dev as a duplicate of this, and submit a merge request, but there should probably be a waiting period of a couple of weeks before merging chromium-libpdf-stable into chromium-libpdf?

Alternatively, I can orphan this package, and you can add an epoch of 1 to the pkgver and modify so that this downloads chromium-libpdf-stable instead. Then a .install file can be added to inform anyone who has this installed but doesn't routinely monitor the comments about the change.

For both cases, I'll submit a chromium-libpdf-dev package soon (in 5-10 minutes).

danyf90 commented on 2014-01-15 14:05

please migrate it to chromium-libpdf-dev so chromium-libpdf-stable can migrate to this name

dot commented on 2014-01-14 19:13

Getting 404 for a 64bit version. Looks like an RPM is no longer there.

ArchFwin commented on 2014-01-13 18:20

Hmm. The current url for google-chrome-dev does seem to be not working. However, the http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel page still links to that link (and gives a 404 error). The .deb version still works so I'll change it (temporarily, until a new version is released or someone tells me the .rpm works again).

Beta has a lower version number than devel, and uses a more tested (probably) version of the library. This is mostly because when I adopted the package, it already downloaded that one.

The modifications for chromium-dev/iron/etc are so that the library is placed in the right directory (stable chromium uses /usr/lib/chromium, dev chromium uses /usr/lib/chromium-dev), rather than changing the downloading version.

Realistically, I keep meaning to migrate this to chromium-libpdf-dev, but haven't.

jwhendy commented on 2014-01-13 17:49

Has the URL changed? The download failed for me with a 404 not found error using this URL from the PKGBUILD:
- "https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-unstable_current_x86_64.rpm

However, in searching around, this one does work:
- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm

Any major differences between unstable vs. beta? I'm wondering if it was a nomenclature change since google-chrome-stable_current... and google_chrome-beta_current... work, but not google-chrome-unstable_current...?

Lastly, the PKGBUILD says that using this for chromium-dev would require modifying the PKGBUILD, but it's current set to grab the unstable version. Is unstable the best match for the chromium pkg from extra? Intuitively, I would think stable -> extra/chromium; unstable/beta -> aur/chromium-dev or aur/chromium-browser-svn.

Sulman commented on 2014-01-10 17:08

Hi John, I understand the PKGBUILD change required, I meant I literally couldn't find it! It just wasn't on Google's mirror when I looked. Probably just a temporary glitch.

jstjohn commented on 2014-01-10 04:28

If you're using 32-bit, change the source line under i686 to the following:
"https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-${_channel}_current_i386.rpm"

Sulman commented on 2014-01-09 22:08

The 32bit version seems to be 404. I had a look on Google's site but I couldn't find it.

agapito commented on 2014-01-08 09:36

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

GerardoGNU commented on 2014-01-08 09:34

rpm download file not found

bch24 commented on 2013-12-18 02:14

Please update checksums.

yqgoodp commented on 2013-12-15 07:26

thx

gbc921 commented on 2013-12-09 13:35

Actually, my fault.
My makepkg DLAGENT (axel) is having some trouble to download this link, then checksum failed.
Sorry for the out-of-date flag.

gbc921 commented on 2013-12-09 11:38

The new sha512sum are,
AMD64:
b90f7f9cf4e3d4137e29d251958c52a9fdd02285e4979657e34f1fffb9562218febbb260f4770093354c23e6efbd2563f19225af70880688545d97dc90153aef

i386:
b53f45dec856fd2fd2fc42cfa3135d41063dc093ac7fdbd898b987d999ee9c7c1fd37217253b974aef40a6545f47d99977da5fb3386567269ce5f988604699df

Sincerely,

jdunn commented on 2013-12-07 00:58

md5sum fails on amd64

Commander commented on 2013-11-14 22:45

New version out:
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.se/
31.0.1650.57

ava1ar commented on 2013-11-14 03:28

Package already updated with recent version.

knightzx commented on 2013-11-14 02:41

This link works for me

https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

pierremx commented on 2013-11-12 18:34

Same here.

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERREUR : Erreur lors du téléchargement de google-chrome-stable-30.0.1599.114-1.i386.rpm

giowck commented on 2013-11-12 17:59

rpm download file not found 404

Det commented on 2013-10-29 04:31

HTML5.

deadcode commented on 2013-10-29 02:46

I wonder how this plays for Chromium without the bundled pepper flash

http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-old-friend-npapi.html

deadcode commented on 2013-10-29 02:46

I found how this plays for Chromium without the bundled pepper flash:

http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-old-friend-npapi.html

frederik commented on 2013-10-23 15:46

I didn't mark it, but the google chrome link gives a 404.

ava1ar commented on 2013-10-19 00:23

Why was this mark out-of-date? Please leave comment with reasoning if you are marking package out of date for any reason besides chrome version bump.

Thanks!

ava1ar commented on 2013-10-17 00:04

billeccentrec,

Iron-bin package should have provides=('chromium') and then this package will install w/o issues, I believe.

trogdor1138 commented on 2013-10-15 17:27

As mentioned on pepper-flash package, download link is no longer valid. For reference for others, necessary package can be found at: ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/sourceforge/s/sn/snowbird/yum/sb20/google-chrome-stable-30.0.1599.66-1.x86_64.rpm

trogdor1138 commented on 2013-10-15 17:25

Appears to be out of date; download link generates a 404.

However, rpmfind.net has the package listed: http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/s/sn/snowbird/yum/sb20/google-chrome-stable-30.0.1599.66-1.x86_64.html

Direct link is: ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/sourceforge/s/sn/snowbird/yum/sb20/google-chrome-stable-30.0.1599.66-1.x86_64.rpm

billeccentrec commented on 2013-10-14 05:05

Chromium dependency makes makepkg install chromium, that is not what I want.
Is there any way to only install pepper flash without installing it?

Det commented on 2013-10-12 19:10

It's for the Dev Channel. -stable is for the Stable Channel (which Iron also follows).

logos commented on 2013-10-12 13:52

Which it's the difference between chromium-pepper-flash and chromium-pepper-flash-stable, besides that the first one has suport for iron-bin? I don't see chromium-pepper-flash like a beta neither :s

billeccentrec commented on 2013-09-22 18:32

Hello, ava1ar
I'm using SRWare Iron(iron-bin), can you add support for it?
Thank you.

billeccentrec commented on 2013-09-22 18:31

Hello, ava1ar
I'm using SRWare Iron(iron-bin), can you add support for it?
Thank you.

ava1ar commented on 2013-09-18 17:47

Thanks for the info, will update package soon.

Anonymous comment on 2013-09-18 17:43

I received a 404 today but was able to workaround it by replacing the source & sha1sums lines for the x86_64 arch with the following:

source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha1sums+=('82cb14f18110cb3dc62f4733cc851b475fe0cf39')

If you need the 32-bit installer, just go to the Chrome download page and copy the link to the 32-bit RPM there.

Anonymous comment on 2013-09-03 08:03

ava1ar,

Thank you for the prompt package update and the reply.

ava1ar commented on 2013-09-02 17:21

SweetthD3ViL,

In such cases, just mark the package as out-of-date and I will update the PKGBUILD to the latest version.

Anonymous comment on 2013-09-02 17:20

I also have a 404 error while trying to install via yaourt.

#curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-29.0.1547.62-219432.i386.rpm

However, after checking the "current" latest version it seems that the PKGbuild is looking for the wrong version.

# wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm | head -c96 | strings
google-chrome-stable-29.0.1547.65-220622

logos commented on 2013-09-02 14:55

It makes me a error donwloading the license.html

Anonymous comment on 2013-08-28 18:08

Fails on 404 google-chrome-stable-29.0.1547.57-217859.x86_64.rpm.... with pacman.

Anonymous comment on 2013-08-28 15:11

When i try to install this via yaourt, it fail with a 404 error.

ArchFwin commented on 2013-08-14 09:19

The x86_64 one was failing because a new version was released and I hadn't updated the package yet. I'd guess the i686 one would be failing as well.

This is now fixed (well, for a week or so until another new version is released).

vinzv commented on 2013-08-13 23:23

Checksum is still failing (x86_64).

This one works:
37f34745cecb950b25aaa055380d9f7e9f3050f1540b990ac44f3c8b75c6bc2cdc616b694e2b899e836875cb22fdbcace1988789773aa38ace7b9c43909f58d1 google-chrome-unstable_current_amd64.deb

ArchFwin commented on 2013-08-07 17:56

It appears that I got the wrong checksum for the i686 version, rather than them changing. I've incremented the pkgrel because of this, although everyone using the x86_64 version doesn't need to update (unless they have the a different pkgver than the current version).

vale commented on 2013-08-07 16:14

checksums are out of date:

% sha512sum google-chrome-unstable_current_*

8edf4e30abcb127a67e284c9f40edc8bc4070265d16c19ec2ccb7de9ae1d1786b04f1f79758391389322fc233e7d19d3719b5460672f51b6d15306899f191690 google-chrome-unstable_current_amd64.deb

1ac07b13b284275247e45f6d92734d8fc0991ebcc1ec0cb07cbf6c3c941e0b2c87e82eaec954ecd154aac8c2c2cf5878320c2c3f1f00ad0637c4f982e6d92321 google-chrome-unstable_current_i386.deb

ArchFwin commented on 2013-07-27 08:24

Fixed in a local copy of the PKGBUILD. I won't bother with a new package upgrade for this though - anyone using iron would probably have noticed and fixed this anyway, so it shouldn't make much of a difference.

xpt commented on 2013-07-27 03:18

in package(), iron-browser, it spare a "Q"
"Qopt/google/chrome/libpdf.so" "$pkgdir/opt/iron/libpdf.so"

and must be:
"opt/google/chrome/libpdf.so" "$pkgdir/opt/iron/libpdf.so"

thanks!

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-21 18:40

Jesin,

I don't know, what adobe reports, but this package updates when new stable chrome version is out. To get the current stable chrome version, run following:

wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm | head -c96 | strings

Current version is google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.71-209842 and it matches version in PKGBUILD, so no update is currently available.

What about provides section - I will add it.

So unflagging as out-of-date for now.

Jesin commented on 2013-07-21 18:19

Looks like 11.8.800.97 is stable on Linux now according to http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

I'd also like to recommend adding the following line to the PKGBUILD:
provides=("chromium-pepper-flash=${pkgver}")

Jesin commented on 2013-07-21 18:05

I'd like to recommend adding the following line to the PKGBUILD:
provides=("chromium-pepper-flash=${pkgver}")

ArchFwin commented on 2013-07-17 09:43

Because running namcap on the resulting package returned: "chromium-libpdf E: Dependency gcc-libs-multilib detected and not included (libraries ['usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6', 'usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1'] needed in files ['usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so'])".

However, it seems that that was just because I had gcc-libs-multilib installed instead of gcc-libs. So I've changed it to gcc-libs.

z33ky commented on 2013-07-17 09:03

Why is there now a dependency to gcc-libs-multilib?
Works fine without it on my system (x86_64).

swiftgeek commented on 2013-07-10 15:48

"Update: We are separately updating users to Flash Player 11.8.800.97 via our component updater."
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2013/07/stable-channel-update.html

swiftgeek commented on 2013-07-10 15:47

"Update: We are separately updating users to Flash Player 11.8.800.97 via our component updater."

dlh commented on 2013-07-10 13:08

Ok, sorry about that :)

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-10 13:07

This update is for Windows, Macintosh and Chrome Frame platform only, no Linux yet.

dlh commented on 2013-07-10 13:05

http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2013/07/stable-channel-update.html
Now looks like 11.8.800.97 is a stable :)

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-10 01:33

Guys,

Correct version is mentioned in /usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json and for now this is 11.7.700.203. Also, you can check version by opening chrome://plugins/ page. Adobe info is irrelevant here.

playenball commented on 2013-07-10 01:29

According to the link you posted Linux -> Chrome (Pepper-based Flash Player) the current version is 11.8.800.97

dlh commented on 2013-07-09 11:23

Well, the latest stable is 11.7.700.225:
Linux -> Chrome (Pepper-based Flash Player)
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-09 03:04

Yeah, got it. Thanks!

Schala commented on 2013-07-09 03:03

This will help when you need to go back a version. Just increment the epoch whenever that happens

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-09 02:57

Done

Schala commented on 2013-07-09 02:52

so that the version is 1:11.7.700.203-1

Schala commented on 2013-07-09 02:52

ava1ar, use epoch=1

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-09 02:51

Updated

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-09 02:44

Updated, version decreased. Please perform force update.

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-09 02:42

PS0,

Looks like they fixed version in last update - it was 11.8 before on stable channel (I think by mistake).

matrs commented on 2013-07-09 00:02

yes, the url has changed as kiven mentioned it. You have to edit the PKGBUILD changing the url and the sha1sum. I just checked the Sha1sum from the package downloaded and it was different from the one posted by kiven.
c3ee26996d5f37cf48534121e3b374a8baf3f332

PS0 commented on 2013-07-08 15:35

Stable version is still 11.7.700.203, 11.8.800.96 is the version bundled with the beta release of Chrome.

niklas.heer commented on 2013-07-07 19:06

Thank you adlerweb, your solution worked for me! :)

matsic commented on 2013-07-07 07:18

me too

Det commented on 2013-07-06 17:39

You're actually extracting the .deb twice as it's already done automatically by makepkg/bsdtar.

ArchFwin commented on 2013-07-06 13:11

I don't think it was a new update...I think the download for the i386 version I did to get the checksums got mangled. The amd64 version has the same checksums, and http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.co.uk/ doesn't mention a new dev version of chromium.

adlerweb commented on 2013-07-06 12:18

Todays sha1s

if [ "$CARCH" == x86_64 ]; then
source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm)
sha1sums+=('c3ee26996d5f37cf48534121e3b374a8baf3f332')
elif [ "$CARCH" == i686 ]; then
source+=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_i386.rpm)
sha1sums+=('5d5f1535d854f8d13d2936c4f0dfabeb86bc63e6')
fi

andreas_baumann commented on 2013-07-06 08:16

Validating source files with sha512sums...
LICENSE ... Passed
google-chrome-unstable_current_i386.deb ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-libpdf.

brotatos commented on 2013-07-06 02:13

I'm getting build errors.
Edit PKGBUILD for `chromium-pepper-flash-stable'? [Y/n] n
Edit `chromium-pepper-flash.install'? [Y/n] n
==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash-stable 11.8.800.96-1 (Fri Jul 5 19:13:26 PDT 2013)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Downloading license.html...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 43852 0 43852 0 0 105k 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 105k
-> Downloading google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.70-209565.x86_64.rpm...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.70-209565.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...
error making package `chromium-pepper-flash-stable', try again? [Y/n] n

saultdon commented on 2013-07-05 01:38

new source: https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
sha1sum: c3ee26996d5f37cf48534121e3b374a8baf3f332

for 64bit users....

dlh commented on 2013-07-04 19:41

Sometimes I don't have sound and I need to refresh a page

mib1982 commented on 2013-07-04 19:13

Yes, Google is developing its own PepperFlash. Still, dlh is right. The latest stable google-version is 11.7.700.225.

Det commented on 2013-07-04 17:48

@graysky, that's because it's out-of-date. The versioned links don't work anymore if there's a new one up.

ender4 commented on 2013-07-04 17:47

If you change the src to https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm for x86_64 installation it works (provided you either changed the checksum or skip it)

graysky commented on 2013-07-03 20:00

% makepkg -srci
==> Making package: chromium-pepper-flash-stable 11.8.800.96-1 (Wed Jul 3 16:00:03 EDT 2013)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Downloading license.html...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 43852 0 43852 0 0 12739 0 --:--:-- 0:00:03 --:--:-- 12736
-> Downloading google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.70-209565.x86_64.rpm...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.70-209565.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

comeandtakeit commented on 2013-07-03 17:33

Anyone else getting this error when updating?

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.70-209565.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

ava1ar commented on 2013-07-03 04:03

Google is developing its own Flash plugin, actual version is stored in /usr/lib/PepperFlash/manifest.json

dlh commented on 2013-07-03 04:00

I thought the latest stable is 11.7.700.225:
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

kiven commented on 2013-07-02 07:26

New Chrome URL https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm and SHA1 Sum for 64 bits version : 46cb0e3523cd1981ef13a29f66ca7f33ae48c4ff

kiven commented on 2013-07-02 07:23

New URL : https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

mjob commented on 2013-06-27 18:28

I got a 404 for downloading the rpm.

https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.52-207119.x86_64.rpm

Anonymous comment on 2013-06-23 14:12

In fact. It is sufficent to replace:

sha1sums=('cdda47faa791d56089f92854957070b1ec135c2e')

with

sha1sums=('6f9602d591d57097153c4e2fdec8e3195af5098f')

and it works.

Anonymous comment on 2013-06-23 14:09

The SHA-1 of license.html is not valid. Maybe Google uploaded it.

Blacktremolo commented on 2013-06-19 18:13

The chrome packages seem to be available at a new URL:
(old) https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-28.0.1500.45-205727.x86_64.rpm
vs.
(new) https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm

ava1ar commented on 2013-06-12 00:07

Hm, works fine for me. What kind of problem are you getting?

Anonymous comment on 2013-06-04 18:05

Please update the source link.

bluerider commented on 2013-05-27 03:34

Audio runs fast for me when using the upgraded version of pepper-flash-stable

--Update :
Seems the HTML5 video runs fast too. This may be a pulse audio issue with chromium itself : <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35454>

--Update :
Issue seems to be fixed with chromium 27.0.1453.93-3 from [extra] repo.

bluerider commented on 2013-05-25 15:50

Audio runs fast for me when using the upgraded version of pepper-flash-stable

--Update :
Seems the HTML5 video runs fast too. This may be a pulse audio issue with chromium itself : <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/35454>

bluerider commented on 2013-05-24 03:50

Audio runs fast for me when using the upgraded version of pepper-flash-stable.

ArchFwin commented on 2013-04-23 17:16

Ah, yes. I accidentally typed 1487 last week instead of 1478. So when it went to 1485 this week, decreasing that number wouldn't update the package for people with AUR helpers. So I incremented the pkgrel instead.

Det commented on 2013-04-23 16:07

.87? I'ts .85: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.fi/2013/04/dev-channel-update_22.html

alucryd commented on 2013-04-07 12:36

Merging into chromium-libpdf.

lahwaacz commented on 2013-04-07 10:42

I think the best action would be to merge it with chromium-libpdf (the unstable version), so that users are notified and votes transfered. I'l send email to aur-general mailing list to request the action.
Thanks.

sxe commented on 2013-04-07 10:26

I see,
and agree to your comments. I guess as time went by other packages with more appropriate names were created and to be honest i don't even know anymore why i named my package the way i did. I think there was a chromium package called chromium-stable at the time my package was created.

Anyway, i don't use this package anymore by myself so i'm willing to disown it if you are interested in changing it the way you like. Maybe its even better to delete it when its not needed anymore.

What are your thoughts about that?

lahwaacz commented on 2013-04-07 09:40

Ah, so the 'stable' is not related to libpdf, but to chromium... But there's no 'chromium-stable' package in AUR nor in official repo, so I'm still confused... 'chromium-libpdf' installs for chromium package in [extra], which I'd say is the official stable release of chromium for Arch (the "better named" comment..). For 'chromium-browser' there's 'chromium-browser-libpdf' which installs into /opt (which is fine, chromium-browser expects it). I really don't see any reason for package of this name to exist.

The "better maintained" comment: sorry, I should have elaborated right away... There is 'sources' array for reason, fetching sources manually is terrible. 'chromium-libpdf' also installs license file.

sxe commented on 2013-04-07 09:02

I don't understand your confusion.

The name implies that this is libpdf for "chromium-stable". An "latest" implies that it is the latest available libpdf version. This is nothing special to this package at all. I would say its pretty common practice to name packages like this.

Regarding the "better naintained" comment:
What should be done different?

lahwaacz commented on 2013-04-07 08:08

It's not clear it this is stable version or not - there is 'stable' in pkgname, but 'latest' in pkgver... In either case, there are better named (and maintained) packages chromium-libpdf-stable and chromium-libpdf, so I think this package should be merged into one of them...

lahwaacz commented on 2013-04-07 07:59

The install script discards anything added to CHROMIUM_FLAGS in /etc/chromium/default. Simple workaround is to start new line, like this [1], but there should be at least some note...

[1]: CHROMIUM_FLAGS="${CHROMIUM_FLAGS} --disk-cache-dir=/tmp/lahwaacz-chromium-cache --disk-cache-size=104857600"

ava1ar commented on 2013-03-27 23:58

Package was updated yesterday and should work.

Anonymous comment on 2013-03-27 21:21

Corrected pkgbuild (relevant part):

source=(https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
license.html::http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html)
install=chromium-pepper-flash.install
sha1sums=('d7d6a59ac188cc62f1c6c00b86bb017a02796437' 'cdda47faa791d56089f92854957070b1ec135c2e')

big_bum commented on 2013-03-26 18:19

==> Retrieving Sources...
-> Downloading google-chrome-stable-25.0.1364.172-187217.x86_64.rpm...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-stable-25.0.1364.172-187217.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

Please update the package with the correct link.

xpt commented on 2013-03-08 04:47

Hi!
The link "http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-25.0.1364.152-185281.x86_64.rpm" is invalid.
I use, with sha1sum included:
https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_x86_64.rpm
aefc636342ae37bc99d963304b2e6ec3b455f7db
and,
licence.html: cdda47faa791d56089f92854957070b1ec135c2e

Anonymous comment on 2013-03-07 19:57

There is new version of licence.html
New sha1sum : dec5fc28aa3399ebcc5da5b516f207702fe16f83

ava1ar commented on 2013-03-04 19:25

new version is out, updated.

ava1ar commented on 2013-03-04 19:25

new version is out, updated.

maddogie commented on 2013-03-03 06:41

I can't belive it took me so long to find out about this package.
Thank you for your work

ava1ar commented on 2013-03-02 04:42

jk779 u r welcome :)

Anonymous comment on 2013-03-01 21:18

Thank you for this brilliant piece of an aur <3 :)

urbanomad64 commented on 2013-02-24 22:18

@deadcode I ran browser-vacuum and videos are playing normally for me again

urbanomad64 commented on 2013-02-24 17:53

@deadcode, I am also having extremely choppy videos. A lot of videos don't even start playing. vimeo & youbtube are quite bad at the moment

NobodySpecial commented on 2013-02-23 13:53

Works fine for me at 1080p on Chromium.

deadcode commented on 2013-02-23 13:36

Umm latest flash is really choppy. Anyone have the same problem? Play videos in fullscreen.

timofonic commented on 2013-02-07 06:23

Can I use it with chromium-derived browsers? Maybe those packages need to provide "chromium" in some way. I would like to be able to do it, please :)

timofonic commented on 2013-02-07 06:22

Sorry, I clicked out of date by error...

Anonymous comment on 2013-02-06 18:26

Bad source link

Anonymous comment on 2013-02-06 18:25

Bad source link

patryk commented on 2013-02-06 07:51

I have problem with md5sums:
google-chrome-stable-24.0.1312.68-180326.x86_64.rpm ... Zgadza się
license.html ... NIE ZGADZA SIĘ

patryk commented on 2013-02-06 07:51

google-chrome-stable-24.0.1312.68-180326.x86_64.rpm ... Zgadza się
license.html ... NIE ZGADZA SIĘ

ava1ar commented on 2013-02-06 04:06

License added

rafaelff commented on 2013-02-06 03:01

License is 'custom' (not one of the 'licenses' package) and, therefore, should be included.

Anonymous comment on 2013-01-23 15:04

@uffuji

I installed these fonts and fixed this problem:
ttf-droid
ttf-liberation
ttf-dejavu
ttf-ms-fonts

Det commented on 2013-01-22 19:41

Just realized the first comment and the whole situation.

It's stupid to have an "alternative". This should _replace_ "chromium-stable-libpdf".

Det commented on 2013-01-11 12:10

@acfrazier, I feel pressured to inform you that packages aren't supposed to include version numbers.

Also you can't remove packages from other people's systems. Grammar-english-YOU-MAKE-A-MISTAKE-AND-I-WILL-TELL-YOU-ABOUT-IT is here to stay.

sxe commented on 2013-01-02 10:40

kolewu and hendry, great suggestions, i changed the PKGBUILD.

hendry commented on 2013-01-02 02:37

Surprised you didn't also suggest -f switch so curl fails properly. :)

kolewu commented on 2013-01-02 02:33

PKGBUILD uses wget that is not installed by default. May I suggest, to use curl, cause it is available by default as required by pacman?

Use this command instead the wget line:
curl -z ${SRC} -O ${SRC_URI}

Only drawback is a warning if the file SRC doesn't exist -- but behaves correctly.

agapito commented on 2012-12-13 09:31

I solved my problem reinstalling package. Thanks.

ava1ar commented on 2012-12-13 00:21

works fine for me, can somebody confirm the issue?

agapito,

Did you try to reinstall package?

acfrazier commented on 2012-12-12 21:28

I can confirm that Det has installed the "grammar-english-1.0.0" package from the AUR.
It is recommended that we remove this version.
It has some bugs where the user attempts to retort and spell check other text that is not their own.

Det commented on 2012-12-12 17:16

find -> found (to discover or seek some item or object)
found -> founded (to establish or set something up, e.g. a firm)

That's all.

agapito commented on 2012-12-12 07:18

With the latest update, flash is not founded:

chromium
[43:43:1212/081715:ERROR:ppapi_thread.cc(237)] Failed to load Pepper module from /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so (error: /usr/lib/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so: no se puede abrir el fichero del objeto compartido: No existe el fichero o el directorio)

agapito commented on 2012-12-12 07:07

With the latest update, flash is not working!

ArchFwin commented on 2012-12-03 19:58

If you replace the chromium in:
'install -Dm755 opt/google/chrome/libpdf.so "$pkgdir/usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so"'
with iron (may be iron-bin, or something else) and then remove chromium as a dependency, it should work.

timofonic commented on 2012-12-03 17:32

How to use it under Iron?

Det commented on 2012-12-02 15:35

Does that surprise you guys?

nuc commented on 2012-11-30 16:18

I confirm, graysky's work

Anonymous comment on 2012-11-30 13:47

When I open certain pdf's text tends to overlap. Any idea what is causing this?

tomasabril commented on 2012-11-29 20:53

@graysky yep, those work. The only difference is the version number?

graysky commented on 2012-11-29 20:46

http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.95-169798.x86_64.rpm
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.95-169798.i386.rpm

graysky commented on 2012-11-29 20:45

http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.95-169798.x86_64.rpm

http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.95-169798.i386.rpm
squishy@ease /scratch %

tomasabril commented on 2012-11-29 20:18

I get error 404 too

nuc commented on 2012-11-29 19:46

No everything down :(

ava1ar commented on 2012-11-29 02:16

Works fine for me. Can you please check if following links work for you:
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.91-167501.x86_64.rpm and http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.91-167501.i386.rpm?

Jristz commented on 2012-11-28 14:54

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

ArchFwin commented on 2012-11-20 23:42

Lynx is only a makedepend. Once the package is installed, it isn't needed any more.

chetwisniewski commented on 2012-11-20 23:40

Missing depends: lynx

ava1ar commented on 2012-11-10 12:37

[ "$CARCH" = 'i686' ] && _arch='i386' works exactly same, as your if-then statement.

ava1ar commented on 2012-11-10 12:35

This is how AUR displays source, if name contains custom variables. When building, everythis is ok.

ava1ar commented on 2012-11-10 12:33

This is how AUR displays source, if name contains custom variables. When building, everythis is ok.

westmin commented on 2012-11-10 12:33

Sources
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable//google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.64-165188..rpm
my desktop is xfce
so i edit it:
-[ "$CARCH" = 'i686' ] && _arch='i386'
+if [ "$CARCH" = 'i686' ]; then
+ _arch='i386'
+fi
and so the last one.

westmin commented on 2012-11-10 12:29

Sources
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable//google-chrome-stable-23.0.1271.64-165188..rpm

my desktop is xfce

ava1ar commented on 2012-11-09 21:41

westmin, please clarify what is wrong. PKGBUILD looks good for me.

westmin commented on 2012-11-09 19:36

please check the PKGBUILD file. you know why!

ArchFwin commented on 2012-11-03 19:14

Because I don't know how to get curl to just keep the website text and not the full source.

Det commented on 2012-11-03 18:45

Btw. why do you use lynx to download the license when there's the already installed curl?

ArchFwin commented on 2012-11-02 22:31

Oops. Not sure how I managed to generate the wrong sha512sums and didn't notice.

shuall commented on 2012-11-02 22:02

You should update those sha512 sums

Det commented on 2012-11-02 18:26

And epoch would be _in_creasing :OOO!

ArchFwin commented on 2012-11-01 19:39

The 3 is a typo (I'm assuming you mean the one in the version?) and should be a 2.

No point changing it though, doesn't affect the package and AUR helpers won't upgrade it because the version number would be decreasing.

Det commented on 2012-11-01 19:35

.3?

barchiesi commented on 2012-10-21 23:45

Replace:
arch=("i686", "x86_64")
with:
arch=("i686" "x86_64")

ArchFwin commented on 2012-10-18 22:11

Lynx is a makedepend because it's used to get the license from the google chrome website.

If you want, you can always edit the PKGBUILD and remove "makedepends=('lynx')", " lynx https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html -dump >> LICENSE.txt" and "install -D -m644 LICENSE.txt "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/LICENSE.txt"".

m1ck3y commented on 2012-10-18 21:47

Why lynx is in dependencies?

mdyan commented on 2012-10-12 03:50

I can display PDFs in chromium, but I can't get the print preview to work, it just comes up with the system print dialog.

ArchFwin commented on 2012-10-10 13:07

The download link now needs to be "https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-unstable_current_amd64.deb" rather than "http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-unstable_current_amd64.deb" (I'd assume the same is true for the i386 version)

Det commented on 2012-10-08 21:54

Yes. Enable this.

step-2 commented on 2012-10-08 20:15

11.4.31.110

mdyan commented on 2012-09-27 03:09

Is there any known way to get the print preview to work?

ava1ar commented on 2012-09-26 02:34

Alternative to https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44148 with appropriate versioning and PKGBUILD structure.

ava1ar commented on 2012-09-26 01:36

Will update as soon as possible, download links are not working for me right now...

graysky commented on 2012-09-26 00:50

@step-2 please flag out of date if a new version is out.

step-2 commented on 2012-09-26 00:45

11,3,31,331

update the sha1sums please .

Jristz commented on 2012-09-09 02:19

x86_64 in my machine, I only have usb-modem access

ava1ar commented on 2012-09-09 00:21

Jristz, what arch are you using? i686 or x86_64?

Jristz commented on 2012-09-09 00:02

eyup, for me work the url provided by you, but the url in the pkgbuild not

ava1ar commented on 2012-09-08 19:57

Working fine for me. I am using direct downloads from the google. Can you please check if downloads from this page working for you: http://chrome.google.com

Jristz commented on 2012-09-08 19:34

not found 404 for mee in the source

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-23 12:10

Fixed

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-23 11:36

Something is messed up with today's update to this package:


:: Starting full system upgrade...
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: chromium-pepper-flash-stable: requires chromium-browser
:: Starting AUR upgrade...
there is nothing to do


There is no "chromium-browser" package in the arch repos, its just "chromium"...

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-21 19:37

21.0.1183.0 is out.

step-2 commented on 2012-08-15 00:33

21.0.1180.79

PKGBUILD : http://pastebin.com/K6YheNJJ

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-14 21:14

Updated.

vorbote commented on 2012-08-14 21:01

Critical bug fix in Flash plugin: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2012/08/stable-channel-update_14.html

vorbote commented on 2012-08-14 20:58

Critical bug fix in Flash plugin: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2012/08/stable-channel-update_14.html

msx commented on 2012-08-14 20:03

21.0.1180.77-1 x86_64 md5sum:

11d356e08f63e97eb7ecc717b1084723

lifning commented on 2012-08-14 01:38

25578f392a73e866cb4cedebb2140b2c for i686.

graysky commented on 2012-08-10 13:13

OK.. .my bad. I use chromium which is OS. THought I read somewhere that pepper-flash was open. Guess not :/

hobarrera commented on 2012-08-10 13:10

Neither chrome, nor flash are open source.

graysky commented on 2012-08-10 12:58

Thanks for this PKG. Stupid question: if this is open source, why the bin package?

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-09 00:59

Please, for amd64 update the md5sums value to 3fb0fc3a9123c9d8adea686f6aa01413.
Thanks.

sfranchi commented on 2012-08-08 22:59

avalar, I was just using the PKGBUILD retrieved by yaourt.
But yours works great. Thanks!

S.

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-08 22:51

sfranchi,

What PKGBUILD are you using? Here is mine one: http://pastebin.com/X95UCXLf. It works pretty fine.
BTW, you can easily track chrome updates here: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/

sfranchi commented on 2012-08-08 22:44

Thx ava1ar, I missed the update. Now for the hard question: how do I edit the PKGBUILD file to make it download and validate the latest release? I see that the download address is:

source=("http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/${_arch}/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.${_arch}.rpm"

and

_verbld=21.0.1180.57-148591

where do I get the correct string? The google page you referred me to only mentions the version number, not the build.

And how do I get the checksum? By downloading the rpm file and md5'ing the result?


ava1ar commented on 2012-08-08 22:18

Current version is 21.0.1180.75

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-08 22:14

Updated to 11.3.31.225

sfranchi commented on 2012-08-08 20:51

The package fails validation. the PKGBUILD has the checksum posted below by jcaden on 2 Aug 2012. But it does not work. Is there a new checksum?

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-02 21:45

new md5sum for x64: feec933918d4ac3efed981f0df7c739d

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-01 01:36

New chrome version is 21.0.1180.57.

ava1ar commented on 2012-08-01 01:27

Updated.

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-01 01:17

New 64 bit hash:
731f135c402630843ca96c0951cec3e3

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-01 01:11

md5 is failing here.

ava1ar commented on 2012-07-24 12:29

yardenac,

md5sums are OK for me. Can you please redownload and check again.

yar commented on 2012-07-24 05:53

checksums failing for me - the binary I got is 3f080e3312a9e2a63322b6f2fcbf4669 (x86_64)

agapito commented on 2012-07-23 17:08

Can webcams work with this plugin? With flashplugin from extra my webcam works in webs. With pepper plugin not.

ava1ar commented on 2012-07-17 12:18

Source alias added.

ava1ar commented on 2012-07-14 14:28

Checksums are failing because chrome version updated, new plugin version is 11.3.31.115. Package updated.

Anonymous comment on 2012-07-14 10:04

x64: bc578f36fd484d7e19c51182c095615c

duffydack commented on 2012-07-14 09:57

==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build chromium-pepper-flash-stable.
sums need updating.

Jristz commented on 2012-07-12 14:24

hey I cannot have a loal coppy, the PKGBUILD every try to download another coppi, but I alredy have one
This is bad, specially for reinstalls and for local AUR copies

hobarrera commented on 2012-07-02 13:53

The packages are named inappropriately. chromium-pepper-flash should be the stable version whereas the unstable version should be named differently.

deadcode commented on 2012-07-01 04:52

Oh ok. Got it

ava1ar commented on 2012-07-01 04:21

deadcode,

Actually this package will work with any chromium build (not only with chromium from [extra]). That why dependency is chromium-browser, which is provided by chromium from [extra] and any other chromium build. So, chromium-browser is OK in this case (usage of provides item from PKGBUILD rather then package name directly).

deadcode commented on 2012-07-01 02:55

Thanks for creating this. Shouldn't the dependencies be chromium?

ava1ar commented on 2012-06-30 19:32

Version of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57249 based on stable Chrome.

ava1ar commented on 2012-06-30 16:41

Hi, sxe

Thanks for the package. Here I posted the updated PKGBUILD, which tries to follow PKGBUILD rules more accurately, then your one: http://pastebin.com/k8aWNuRb Feel free to use it.

Anonymous comment on 2012-06-29 06:30

Out-of-date and wrong md5sums anyway.

clu commented on 2012-05-26 18:45

New md5sum for i386: 6ae57a62c4a1ea24b95beb6923c9fab0

foxcub commented on 2012-05-21 16:35

I've disowned this package, since I no longer actively use it.

toketin commented on 2012-05-07 18:05

Nothing still erorr for wrong md5sum under x86_64

bentglasstube commented on 2012-04-30 23:10

Checksums I got today

98f42de4b084bc464a8aa4d02018d1bd google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb
59fc1dfd2eafd92b4dbfee275c5faa19 google-chrome-stable_current_i386.deb

flexiondotorg commented on 2012-04-10 13:37

Hi,

Changed for i686 too. Here both the current md5sums.

08cdcbddd4b0565d89c49b0aac00c1f2 google-chrome-stable_current_i386.deb
77997f371088836ee8a0c6f637658e2e google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb

Regards, Martin

dbrgn commented on 2012-04-05 23:10

...and again.

77997f371088836ee8a0c6f637658e2e google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb

xhochy commented on 2012-03-23 10:51

changed again for amd64 ;)

fa0f7d13919eae88255ca935a85e9050 google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb

shadyabhi commented on 2012-03-06 15:40

md5sum for x86_64 is changed.

md5sums=('07240c4d81ef99ef34c4e8842a993958')

wolfjb commented on 2012-02-02 03:04

md5 x86_64 is c1471ad2053bed10a96a332188f2bb6b

kiodo1981 commented on 2011-11-19 08:11

md5 x86_64 is bb98e27659cdf6bbbf57c2b490703757

sxe commented on 2011-10-28 17:40

I download the packages by myself, generate the md5sum and add them to the PKGBUILD.
If you post them here, i cannot guarantee that you gave me the right ones.

hendry commented on 2011-10-27 17:24

How do you check them to "guarantee security"?

sxe commented on 2011-10-27 17:15

Again.. lol

btw, its not necessary to post the md5 values here. Thx for your effort guys but i have to check them by myself to guarantee security.

samuvuo commented on 2011-10-27 03:43

i686 md5sum is 0ce3623cf795b305beb13c0c7a497a60

sinister99 commented on 2011-10-26 23:02

x86_64 md5sum is 0e5ee16c4a4d0548756dbec87fc99dd0

dhaines commented on 2011-09-29 11:45

I would recommend adding the -f flag to the lzma command for easy upgrading via, e.g., "makepkg -sfi". Without it, makepkg will throw an error if you've ever built libpdf before. With it, when libpdf is upgraded, you can just run your makepkg and voila: new version. Users who keep their build directories around will rejoice and there's no downside to overwriting the extracted data, as there's no chance of destroying user-made changes to the source with a binary distribution.

Alternatively, you could just use tar with the --lzma option and skip the lzma command altogether.

hendry commented on 2011-09-27 01:50

@Solstice How do I tell which version of Chromium's native PDF reader?

I think I'm on the latest and when I scroll wildly on for e.g. http://hendry.iki.fi/msc.pdf I see no refresh problems on 686, Thinkpad X201.

solstice commented on 2011-09-26 20:24

about the bug, anyone ?

Anonymous comment on 2011-09-24 11:36

@solstice: What do you mean is easier and makes less problems? Regularly running yaourt -Syua to get also the AUR packages incl. chromium-stable-libpdf updated when the system is updated or to first uninstalling every AUR package before doing a system update with pacman -Syu or yaourt -Syua and reinstalling them afterwards just because of those versioned dependencies? Btw., I have installed more than 100 AUR packages. So in the worst case I regularly had to uninstall and reinstall more than 100 packages manually every time I want to update my system. And what is a bigger problem? A temporarily not working pdfviewer which is comfortable but not necessary or a non-updatable system?

Arch Linux is a rolling release so it can be expected that everybody has installed the newest version of a package. So a AUR package only needs to depend on this latest version of a dependency.

solstice commented on 2011-09-24 11:18

@cuberpatrol: I suggested that because I have problem most of the time when version did not match between the plugin and chromium. There is no unupdatable system. Just remove the offending package i.e remove chromium-stable-pdf in that case.

Anyway, at the moment, I got problem when I scroll a pdf. only the bottom part of the screen is refreshed. some times only after a few pages, when I scroll with my mouse. on i686

anyone having such a problem ?

solstice commented on 2011-09-24 11:16

@cyberpatrol: I suggested that because I have problem most of the time when version do not match between the plugin and chromium.

Also, at the moment, It got proglem when I scroll a pdf. only the bottom part of the screen is refreshed. some times only after a few pages, when I scroll with my mouse. on i686

anyone having such a problem ?

Anonymous comment on 2011-09-22 14:11

And new one for x86_64: 13ff45cfb78421618162702be1d5c5de

Anonymous comment on 2011-09-22 10:45

New md5sum for i386: f36b3569ec07246fe9831e504bfb7083

Anonymous comment on 2011-09-17 13:31

@solstice: And again, and again, and again... No versioned dependencies in AUR! They lead to several serious issues like unupdatable systems, because pacman -Syu or yaourt -Syua don't work correctly with versioned dependencies in AUR, because they can't resolve the dependencies from AUR. This is only possible with the binary repos.

sxe commented on 2011-09-17 13:11

@solstice
Thats not necessary because it should work with "all" chromium versions.

solstice commented on 2011-09-17 12:40

I would suggest to include more restricting depends; something like

depends=('chromium>13' 'chromium<15')

felihommen commented on 2011-09-16 15:24

Hi.
New md5sum for x86_64: d5cbb9d6bd452ad430a359977886395a

sxe commented on 2011-09-07 08:05

Thx, you are right, they changed the package again.
Fixed.

louis058 commented on 2011-09-06 10:07

md5sum for i686 needs updating (don't know about x86_64): "dfb562adaf16044e068799b27e8f5de8"

louis058 commented on 2011-09-06 09:57

md5sum for i686 needs updating

louis058 commented on 2011-09-06 09:52

md5sum for i686 also needs updating, new one is: "dfb562adaf16044e068799b27e8f5de8"

louis058 commented on 2011-09-06 09:50

I think md5sum for i686 also needs updating

sxe commented on 2011-08-31 08:51

thx, updated

foolosophy commented on 2011-08-31 07:45

md5sum for x86_64 needs updating

sxe commented on 2011-08-23 13:56

updated

sxe commented on 2011-08-11 17:53

updated

bluefalcon commented on 2011-08-10 16:36

for x86_64 the md5sum is "c9890222152b89614c9ef884653637d5"

bluefalcon commented on 2011-08-10 16:34

for x86_64 the md4sum is c9890222152b89614c9ef884653637d5

sxe commented on 2011-08-03 09:40

*updated
FYI: Even the print preview works, great feature.

sxe commented on 2011-08-02 20:09

You are too fast, its not even in the repositories. ;)
I will update when its available but thx.

dserban commented on 2011-08-02 19:17

FYI, Chromium 13 is out. This plug-in may need to be updated.

sxe commented on 2011-07-21 17:18

updated

TamCore commented on 2011-07-20 15:01

For i686 md5sums=('d4ec04c758bfc937d583658dceb64690')

sxe commented on 2011-06-29 18:41

@hendry: The md5 sum guarantees that you will install the same package i made the PKGBUILD with. So its garantees the functionality and it also guarantees that there is no unsafe package on the remote server that could be damage your system with a virus or other shit.

The problem that the package is broken from time to time is because google updates their chromium build and the guy who updates the chromium PKGBUILD does not update this package at the same time. So there is no security risk its only a bit annoying.

hendry commented on 2011-06-29 10:37

@sxe Why isn't it secure enough to rely on the https download?

I don't think it's good security to have out of date / broken packages as we've seen countless times before, even if it is just for few hours / days.

sxe commented on 2011-06-29 09:57

updated!

@hendry: Technically it is possible but its a security feature that should not be disabled.

hendry commented on 2011-06-29 08:17

Forgive my idiocy, though can't we do away with this md5sum check? This is getting really boring.

digitalone commented on 2011-06-29 06:33

I can't pass md5sum check...

sxe commented on 2011-06-15 19:22

They updated the chromium file, thx for the hint.
Should work now.

kargerm commented on 2011-06-15 16:51

md5sum for i686 is also wrong, the right one:

md5sums=('41b92b2f35f12cf2e31998a22e9dba7a')

Polly commented on 2011-06-15 06:06

md5sum for x86_64 is wrong. right is:

md5sums=('409c1d33d38e09bf295f8e57e18d210b')

Polly commented on 2011-06-15 06:03

md5sum for x86_64 is wrong.

right is:

md5sums=('c7e4cf14ff76908924bba62a30997018')

sxe commented on 2011-06-08 08:20

updated

machoo02 commented on 2011-06-07 22:47

New stable version is 12

sxe commented on 2011-06-07 20:28

updated

sxe commented on 2011-06-06 17:03

@mclaud2000
Thx and fixed

dzaragoza commented on 2011-06-06 15:06

Hello

The md5sum for x86_64 is wrong, the right one is:

md5sums=('c7e4cf14ff76908924bba62a30997018')

Reagards

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-06 09:43

Btw., you can remove the comment above this, because everybody knows what this is for anyway, because it's the common way of doing this.

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-06 09:42

This is principally the right way, but...

if [ $CARCH = "i686" ]; then
...
else
if [ $CARCH = "x86_64" ]; then
...
fi
fi

The correct syntax is:

if [ $CARCH = "i686" ]; then
...
elif [ $CARCH = "x86_64" ]; then
...
fi

sxe commented on 2011-06-06 08:41

@thecraag
You are right, i have added the x86 checksum.

Does anyone know how, to add a checksum for all archs? Currently i download the package manually and use md5sum.

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-05 22:18

You appear to have added the source md5sum for the amd64 google-package only, causing the i686 package to always fail checksum and abort.

sxe commented on 2011-06-05 08:58

@JSpaces
Good point, i have added the check.

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:11

@sxe
If I may suggest a format change for the PKGBUILD:
http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH

It allows the source file to have a check sum thus ensuring users have downloaded the source correctly.
The install line does the permissions correctly without -u root -g root options.
$ls -lh /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.0M Jun 5 00:09 /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:11

@sxe
If I may suggest a format change for the PKGBUILD:
http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH

It allows the source file to have a check sum thus ensuring users have downloaded the source correctly.
The install line does the permissions correctly without -u root -g root options.
$ls -lh /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.0M Jun 5 00:09 /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:11

@sxe
If I may suggest a format change for the PKGBUILD:
[url]http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH[/url]

It allows the source file to have a check sum thus ensuring users have downloaded the source correctly.
The install line does the permissions correctly without -u root -g root options.
$ls -lh /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.0M Jun 5 00:09 /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:05

@sxe
If I may suggest a format change for the PKGBUILD:
[url]http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH[/]

It allows the source file to have a check sum thus ensuring users have downloaded the source correctly.
The install line does the permissions correctly without -u root -g root options.
$ls -lh /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.0M Jun 5 00:09 /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:02

@sxe
[url=http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH]PKGBUILD[url]

JSpaces commented on 2011-06-05 07:00

@sxe
A suggested format change for the PKGBUILD:
[url=http://pastebin.com/y8bZY9CH]PKGBUILD[/url]
When the PKGBUILD is formatted this way allows the package to have md5sums (sha1sums or sha256sums if desired) thus ensuring users that the source file is downloaded correctly.
The install line in suggested PKGBUILD without the -u root -g root options gets the correct permissions.
$ls -lh /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6.0M Jun 5 00:09 /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so

sxe commented on 2011-06-04 08:24

@dserban
Thx for your offer but like i said, i have no problem with maintaining this package. :)

@cyberpatrol
I don't know either, when the pdf plugin has to be rebuild. It depends on the changes they made to the new version so you cannot say for sure that it only happens when a major version was released.
Anyway, i changed the version back to the current chromium stable version. I think in the end this is the best solution.

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-02 21:40

I know that you're doing this in your spare time. Me too.

I don't know when this plugin has to be reinstalled, if it's only necessary with major version updates of chromium or if this can happen with minor updates, too. If it's only necessary with major updates, why don't you just set $pkgver to the major version number? Otherwise let the people flag this package as out-of-date. But that's much better than setting $pkgver to an unmeaning latest and actually not maintaining it.

dserban commented on 2011-06-02 18:38

Hi Andy,
I can take over for you and keep maintaining the package if you want to disown it.

sxe commented on 2011-06-02 17:37

Hey buddy,
i'm not using "latest" cause i'm lazy, i'm using it because i thought its a good solution. Calling me lazy is not the best thing you did today. I' doing this in my free time and was always aiming to find the best solution. I changed the version number more then once cause the users told me its better to do it that way.

I'm completely on your side, that a software crash is not a good solution. Anyway, its not crashing the whole browser its only crashing the plugin. Thats a difference i think. (Of course its not good either)

To come to an end of this discussion. I can change the version every time chromium gets updated (like i did before). But then its necessary that every time chrome gets an update, someone has to flag this package "Out of date", cause i'm not using chromium at the moment. If thats the preferred proceeding i'm fine with it.

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-02 11:12

A software crash is definitely the worst and most user-unfriendly update reminder. Installing and updating the software properly that's what package managers are for. And it's the maintainer's job to regularly keep his packages up-to-date. Always letting the user's software crash and forcing the user to always updating one single package manually just because you're too lazy to regularly update this package is really not nice.

A user expects that his whole system gets updated at once with one single command like pacman -Syu resp. yaourt -Syua or the like. And he expects that his system is really up-to-date and running stable without any crashes.

To avoid too many out-of-date flags you can set $pkgver to chromium's major version number as already suggested, if you're sure that this plugin really only needs to be updated with every major update of chromium.

sxe commented on 2011-06-02 06:54

The user will think about it cause the pdf viewer will not work if you don't do it. I think thats the best reminder you can get. ;)
Anyway, i think this is a far better solution, cause the main problem so far (see below) was, that users thought this package was out of date, cause of the version number.

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-01 21:06

It's not the best idea to set $pkgver to latest, because this sometimes needs to be updated. Not every user thinks about this. So it's definitely better to set $pkgver to at least the major version number of chromium, so that this package gets updated automatically if it needs to be reinstalled.

sxe commented on 2011-06-01 19:22

thx dserban, i add "latest", maybe that helps.

dserban commented on 2011-06-01 18:14

To simplify the PKGBUILD and avoid it constantly being out-of-date, I recommend the following version (it's the one I'm using):
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=PjnNndBs

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-21 03:46

Yes sir, sweisman, open up the pkgbuild with gedit or your preferred editor and change the depency from chromium to chromium-dev and change chromium in the $pkgdir part to chromium-dev. :)

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-17 12:25

I like to stay on the bleeding edge and use chromium-dev (another AUR package). Can you modify this package to work with either version?

hendry commented on 2011-05-02 10:40

thanks for the update, things are working again on my 64bit system. :)

sxe commented on 2011-05-02 08:43

updated

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-02 02:57

Chromium Stable has gone from 10 to 11.
But no worries because libpdf still works.

hendry commented on 2011-05-01 17:34

I'm also getting crashes on a 64 bit system :(

hendry@i7 ~$ file /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
/usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
hendry@i7 ~$ chromium --version
Chromium 10.0.648.205
hendry@i7 ~$ pacman -Qo /usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so
/usr/lib/chromium/libpdf.so is owned by chromium-stable-libpdf 10.0.648.204-1

trusktr commented on 2011-04-30 17:06

I'm trying chromium-stable-libpdf but it crashes completely. I enabled verbose mode, but there's still no output related to this bug.
I reported it upstream in case they have any input, but they hardly ever respond. :\
Any idea?

trusktr commented on 2011-04-30 08:04

Having it at "10" will still require you to recompile every time chromium is updated...

Anyways, whichever tab I try viewing a PDF in, that tab crashes completely.

Sharpeee commented on 2011-04-17 13:32

@misc: Thanks for the notice!

misc commented on 2011-04-06 12:47

@Sharpeee: The bug appears to be gone with chromium r80599 and a fresh libpdf.

misc commented on 2011-04-05 15:34

@Sharpeee: I'm having the same issue since updating from chromium-browser-bin r79615. Pages won't render and a freeze message is displayed, chromium-browser-ppa won't find the plugin.

foxcub commented on 2011-04-02 18:58

@misc Thanks for the suggestion. Switched to curl.

Sharpeee commented on 2011-04-02 16:08

For some reason, whenever I install this package, my browser just stops working. Anybody experiencing the same?

wooptoo commented on 2011-03-31 00:38

Maybe changing pkgver to "10" will help, without any minor numbers :)

sxe commented on 2011-03-29 14:30

Then call that funny guys who keep flagging this package as "out of date" to stop. ;)

wooptoo commented on 2011-03-29 13:56

sxe: I think updating this only at major releases is enough.

misc commented on 2011-03-24 19:22

Please replace wget with curl. wget's constant "can't resolve host address" are highly annoying for me and curl will replace it in the next release of pacman (google "Replacing wget with curl in makepkg").

Following the changes in makepkg.conf, the new line is:
curl -fLC - --retry 3 --retry-delay 3 -o google-chrome-unstable_current_$libpdf_arch.deb http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-unstable_current_$libpdf_arch.deb

sxe commented on 2011-03-14 10:38

cyberpatrol, good point, i will try to keep it updated.
Anyway, i said this before.
If it does not work after the latest chromium update, install the plugin again at it will work.

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-08 05:47

@sxe: It would probably be helpful if you would keep $pkgver updated accordingly to the latest chromium package in [extra]. This way everybody who is using an AUR wrapper like yaourt gets the latest version of this package automatically installed, too. Just a suggestion.

Anonymous comment on 2011-02-19 21:15

Hey, I think this depends on libevent.

sxe commented on 2011-02-10 19:07

i don't know who marked this as outdated, only the pkgver which matches the current chromium version was outdated but this has absolutely no effect on the functionality.
If you rebuild the package ech time chromium gets an update, everythink should work fine.

Anyway i have updated the version so also the non believers get their will. ;)

wooptoo commented on 2011-02-05 15:17

Indeed the package needs recompiling with every Chromium update.
However it does not need to match the Chromium version at all (pkgver from the PKGBUILD is not used anywhere).

toketin commented on 2011-02-05 09:32

I had to reinstall it in order to make it working with chromium 9

andrewj commented on 2011-02-04 11:35

Although this plugin shows insatlled and enabled in about:plugins, I get a grey screen with "missing plugin" when I try and access any pdf in Chromium 8.0.552.237

Any ideas?

wooptoo commented on 2011-01-31 17:21

Does this package need updating with every Chromium release?

Harvie commented on 2011-01-28 00:33

do want!!! thx.
i'd like to se this in some non-free repository (eg.: archlinux.fr)

foxcub commented on 2011-01-21 04:27

Updated. Thanks, falconindy.

falconindy commented on 2011-01-20 04:17

I've cleaned up the PKGBUILD a bit. Using ar and lzma (directly) are unnecessary.

http://sprunge.us/ffYK

(apologies for the re-repost, the link was bad, and im bad.)

falconindy commented on 2011-01-20 04:16

I've cleaned up the PKGBUILD a bit. Using ar and lzma (directly) are unnecessary.

http://sprunge.us/ffyk

(apologies for the repost, the link was bad)

falconindy commented on 2011-01-20 04:14

I've cleaned up the PKGBUILD a bit. Using ar and lzma (directly) are unnecessary.

http://sprunge.us/EDAF

sxe commented on 2011-01-15 11:06

Thx for the hint dogo77, its fixed now.

foxcub commented on 2011-01-09 17:31

Good point. I've changed the license to non-free.

foxcub commented on 2011-01-09 17:30

Good point. I've changed to license to non-free.

dogo77 commented on 2011-01-09 16:37

As stated here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=50852#c16
and here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=51546
libpdf uses non-free components.

Shouldn't licence: be changed to non-free?

dogo77 commented on 2011-01-09 16:37

As stated here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=50852#c16
and here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=51546
libpdf uses non-free components.

Shouldn't licence: be changed to non-free?

dogo77 commented on 2011-01-09 16:37

As stated here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=50852#c16
and here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=51546
libpdf uses non-free components.

Shouldn't licence: be changed to non-free?

sxe commented on 2010-12-15 18:50

i don't know who flagged it out of date. You have to rebuild / reinstall the package after the chromium update and everything works fine.

Anyway i fixed the chrome version in the package.

fettouhi commented on 2010-12-14 19:28

Yes it does but you have to change chromium to chromium-dev everywhere in the PKGBUILD file.

fettouhi commented on 2010-12-14 19:27

Yes it does but you have to change chromium to chromium-dev everywhere in the PKGBUILD file.

foxcub commented on 2010-12-14 16:25

Not sure. Can you try, and tell us if it does?

fettouhi commented on 2010-12-14 13:11

Does this work with the chromium-dev package in AUR?

Anonymous comment on 2010-12-06 23:21

I am a robot. This is not an official message. You have accidentally tarred up some dotfiles. Examples:
.hg_archival.txt
Suggestion: use "makepkg --source". Feel free to disregard this as you would any other comment. This robot will not post here again.

Anonymous comment on 2010-12-06 22:36

I am a robot. This is not an official message. You have accidentally tarred up some dotfiles. Examples:
.hg_archival.txt
Suggestion: use "makepkg --source". Feel free to disregard this as you would any other comment. This robot will not post here again.

frigaut commented on 2010-12-06 03:20

yep, same. thanks.

bohoomil commented on 2010-12-04 17:21

Thank you. Works like a charm.

Anonymous comment on 2010-12-04 16:39

@frigaut: if you happen to run chromium from Extra, try chromium-stable-libpdf package instead.

sxe commented on 2010-12-04 13:33

The pakage chromium-libpdf only works with chromium-dev, so here is the stable version.

foxcub commented on 2010-12-03 17:35

Ok, I've changed the PKGBUILD to put this library into /usr/lib/chromium. I moved the old package into chromium-browser-libpdf. Hopefully, this will make everybody happy. I haven't tested this new package, so let me know if it works.

Harvie commented on 2010-12-03 10:43

this should go to /usr/lib/chromium onstead of /opt/chromium-browser
at least you should add symlink there to make this work with extra/chromium which is official chromium package in ArchLinux...

frigaut commented on 2010-12-03 04:53

same as nofoo for me. in 86 bits, it only shows a grey page.

clu commented on 2010-11-09 19:04

Cool. Next time you update it you could throw in a comment about the chromium [extra] path if you feel like helping out the other folks.

foxcub commented on 2010-11-09 15:31

I use this PKGBUILD with chromium-browser-bin: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31368
It does provide chromium-browser, and keeps its plugins in /opt/chromium-browser. I think it's easy enough to adjust the PKGBUILD that it doesn't warrant replacing this one.

clu commented on 2010-11-09 08:23

This is working for me with chromium installed from extra version 7.0.517.44-1 (i686) although I have also moved the libpdf.so path to /usr/lib/chromium. It appears that the path in the wiki is outdated and that arch is using /usr/lib/chromium for plugins.

The dependency 'chromium-browser' does not exist. If you want this to depend on the chromium package in extra then the dependency is just 'chromium'

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-31 09:07

Does not work with chromium installed from extra (x86_64).
The directory /opt/chromium-browser will be created and will only hold the file libpdf.so. There's no pdf plugin in about:plugins.

If i copy the libpdf.so from that directory to /usr/lib/chromium "Chrome PDF Viewer" is shown in about:plugins, but if i click any pdf, chromium only shows a black page.

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-28 19:42

Para "chromium-browser-ppa" la carpeta es : "/usr/lib/chromium-browser/"

foxcub commented on 2010-10-26 03:02

Removed.

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-26 01:51

binutils tar and wget are actually makedepends, not depends. And also they are part of the base group, base and base-del package should not be listed as dependencies and are assumed to be present on every arch install.

foxcub commented on 2010-10-10 16:01

Done.

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-10 15:03

Please add i686 support. PKGBUILD should look like this: http://hpaste.org/40474/chromiumlibpdf_pkgbuild
Thanks!