Package Details: google-chrome-beta 52.0.2743.82-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/google-chrome-beta.git (read-only)
Package Base: google-chrome-beta
Description: An attempt at creating a safer, faster, and more stable browser (Beta Channel)
Upstream URL: https://www.google.com/chrome
Licenses: custom:chrome
Provides: google-chrome, pepper-flash
Submitter: None
Maintainer: Det
Last Packager: Det
Votes: 326
Popularity: 2.521727
First Submitted: 2009-12-08 19:09
Last Updated: 2016-07-21 02:54

Required by (21)

Sources (3)

Pinned Comments

Det commented on 2016-03-09 05:02

✔ NOTE: If the md5sums don't match, don't post the makepkg output. Simply flag the package.

You can check for new Linux releases in: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Beta%20updates, or use:
$ 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 }'

Latest Comments

Det commented on 2016-03-31 21:19

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10863, https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/46546

The red out-of-date note can now be clicked to see the message.

jhsnyder666 commented on 2016-03-31 20:18

Definitely cool! :-)

Is pinning new to aur?

I put the md5sums in a comment anyway, just so's the issue was unambiguous.

Det commented on 2016-03-31 18:50

How about them "Pinned Comments", tho?

jhsnyder666 commented on 2016-03-31 18:49

I get a different md5sum:

live archive: d3ebb00b2940fa64599b01ca6e3ab5ab
PKGBUILD: dded75e9cfa91ac7707b06c68412a507

Det commented on 2016-03-09 05:02

✔ NOTE: If the md5sums don't match, don't post the makepkg output. Simply flag the package.

You can check for new Linux releases in: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Beta%20updates, or use:
$ 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 }'

Det commented on 2016-02-25 09:39

Could you read the pkgdesc?

kuenx commented on 2016-02-25 09:07

The checksum for google-chrome-beta_49.0.2623.56_amd64.deb fails.

Det commented on 2016-02-10 07:02

*OBS!* 32-bit support for Google Chrome Beta Channel has been dropped. Either upgrade to 64-bit, or stick to [extra]/chromium, which will continue to be updated:

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

Det commented on 2016-02-10 06:48

And the source_i686 / md5sums_i686.

brycec commented on 2016-02-10 06:47

@Det Oh, good point. I didn't even think to check both files... Sorry for my noise. Guess the PKGBUILD needs to have i686 removed from its `arch=` line then, eh?

Det commented on 2016-02-10 06:42

Thanks, but he probably means the 32-bit build, which apparently was dropped (as you would see in the upstream download section as well): http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/12/01/1524259/google-to-drop-chrome-support-for-32-bit-linux

brycec commented on 2016-02-10 04:13

@wilberfan Just tested with yaourt, makepkg, and wget'ing the URL itself: all work for me.

wget https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb
--2016-02-09 20:12:05-- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb
Resolving dl.google.com (dl.google.com)... 2607:f8b0:400a:800::200e, 216.58.193.78
Connecting to dl.google.com (dl.google.com)|2607:f8b0:400a:800::200e|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 48486470 (46M) [application/x-debian-package]
Saving to: ‘google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb’

google-chrome-beta_current_am 100%[===================================================>] 46.24M 7.76MB/s in 5.8s

2016-02-09 20:12:11 (7.93 MB/s) - ‘google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb’ saved [48486470/48486470]

wilberfan commented on 2016-02-10 02:33

I've been getting a consistent "404" error ("not found") when I try to update.

Det commented on 2015-11-25 06:31

You can also use 'SKIP' or "makepkg --skipinteg (-si)" or just wait for me to update it.

Retro_Gamer commented on 2015-11-25 05:47

After it failed for me using yaourt I left it at the build failed want to Restart Y/N question. Opened /tmp/yaourt-tmp-retro/aur-google-chrome-beta/ directory. I ran md5sum google-chrome-beta_47.0.2526.69_amd64.deb to get the correct md5sum of 52a999c38b1f1622f9db4c6e280cd549. Opened the PKGBUILD and changed line 30 to read:

md5sums_x86_64=('52a999c38b1f1622f9db4c6e280cd549')

Went back to still open terminal running yaourt and typed Y to redo and it finished as it should.

bendavis78 commented on 2015-11-20 21:56

The MD5SUM for the .deb file needs to be updated. I'm showing 39e1c95f411b3371e5368658dde42556

schultzter commented on 2015-11-05 02:57

So it looks like the problem I'm having is a known issue over at the Chromium project.

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=525751

The problem is some older CPU don't have the LAHF instruction.

schultzter commented on 2015-11-04 20:56

Unfortuately I'm still having the "Illegal instruction (core dumped)" issue with google-chrome-beta, but now it's happening with -stable too. I guess whatever changes Google made to -beta at the time have made their way into -stable now.

Anyone have any tips to help me debug this? Or at least help focus on what the problem could be? I've tried running with the --debug flag but I don't get any more output; and I can't find the core file any where so I have no idea what's dumped.

Thanks,

freijon commented on 2015-10-07 16:40

Please modify the following line in the PKGBUILD:

- sed -i "/Exec=/i\StartupWMClass=Google-chrome-$_channel" "$pkgdir"/usr/share/applications/google-chrome-$_channel.desktop

+ sed -i "/Exec=/i\StartupWMClass=google-chrome-$_channel" "$pkgdir"/usr/share/applications/google-chrome-$_channel.desktop

The upper case "G" causes plank to show double icons when Chrome is running

schultzter commented on 2015-09-25 01:12

Yeah, the gdb-chromium.txt file is empty.

I've also tried upgrading to the latest version, same problem though.
Name : google-chrome-beta
Version : 46.0.2490.42-1

I guess I need to figure out how to use gdb...

Det commented on 2015-09-18 22:17

You don't have to reinstall the thing, it doesn't do anything at all. What you're doing with that command is just writing gdb-chromium.txt to the current directory. You could also try GDB or Strace, if gdb-chromium.txt is empty.

schultzter commented on 2015-09-18 22:07

I figured I might as well dance, so I completely deleted those two directories, then re-installed google-chrome-beta - same result.

Then I tried this command to debug, google-chrome-beta --debug 2>&1 | tee gdb-chromium.txt (found on the Ubuntu forums, for Chromium), but nothing happens, Nothing at all!!!

Det commented on 2015-09-18 09:07

Ok, don't yell(?!) about the font, it's a virtual dependency, provided by any font package you have. It means you need some of them.

Did you try with a clean profile or debugging the app? If you haven't replaced the dependencies with AUR versions that might not work, try renaming the folders ~/.config/google-chrome-beta and ~/.cache/google-chrome-beta.

schultzter commented on 2015-09-18 03:25

Also noticed this package depends on ttf-font, which doesn't seem to exist any more?!

schultzter commented on 2015-09-18 01:41

Am I the only one? I tried completely removing and re-installing. It happened with the 46.0.2490.22-1 version as well. I'm running stable now and it's working fine (so are Firefox, Chromium, and Vivaldi). Nothing in the forums.

[user@host ~]$ google-chrome-beta
Illegal instruction (core dumped)

[user@host ~]$ pacman -Qi google-chrome-beta
Name : google-chrome-beta
Version : 46.0.2490.33-1
Architecture : x86_64

Det commented on 2015-09-17 17:09

That's always the reason.

j3zz4h commented on 2015-09-02 21:41

The reason the checksum fails is because there is a new beta release.

(line 8)
--pkgver=45.0.2454.78
++pkgver=46.0.2490.13
(line 29)
--md5sums_i686=('86f89b18f0a4cff0243d5ba21e76ff17')
++md5sums_i686=('2bbaa53750bd6174af9e9a3fc6ace238')
(line 30)
--md5sums_x86_64=('3c9119aa02d2f550e29cfb959b116690')
++md5sums_x86_64=('37f75ae7b618a6cf1f48d20e8e1ddde1')

Det commented on 2015-08-27 12:02

Yeah it does. There's a new one up. Check the link, it's static.

dflt commented on 2015-08-27 10:06

# Check for new Linux releases in: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Beta%20updates
# or use: $ 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 }'

@Det this really doesn't say why the checksum fails :)

Det commented on 2015-08-27 09:24

No, read the top of the PKGBUILD.

greyltc commented on 2015-08-27 08:58

Is the checksum correct?
I'm getting:

==> Validating source files with md5sums...
google-chrome-beta_45.0.2454.46_amd64.deb ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

Det commented on 2015-08-26 17:49

Flags are now read directly from ~/.config/chrome-beta-flags.conf, while $CHROMIUM_USER_FLAGS is unsupported. Didn't bump the pkgrel.

jedr93 commented on 2015-06-04 00:31

44.0.2403.30 beta

Det commented on 2015-05-14 05:17

Omg. Just flag it.

stratus_ss commented on 2015-05-13 23:40

md5sum google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb
c67dd52b00d51ff7f59c0d8ac558924d google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb

zhantongz commented on 2015-04-08 21:54

md5sum google-chrome-beta_42.0.2311.68_amd64.deb
b47b36c8ae8d100515a6ea9226039f84 google-chrome-beta_42.0.2311.68_amd64.deb

Det commented on 2015-03-04 19:07

@nopy, why?

Det commented on 2015-02-19 21:37

New build the following day: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2015/02/beta-channel-update_19.html

Changelog: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/41.0.2272.63..41.0.2272.64?pretty=fuller&n=10000

The reason for this is apparently: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=459484

Det commented on 2015-01-29 02:27

It's sweet how you guys always assist each other what exact line in the PKGBUILD needs to be changed to have the MD5s match.

You could also run:
$ makepkg -si --skipinteg

Or use:
md5sums_x86_64=('SKIP')

Philux commented on 2015-01-29 01:43

md5 for google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb is 2c606368a80a65f88a37b2a3bf71d904

Edit Line 26 and change:
md5sums_x86_64=('848d4fe8d1bdce70d9bae82367aaadca')
To
md5sums_x86_64=('2c606368a80a65f88a37b2a3bf71d904')

Det commented on 2015-01-27 13:41

Yes it is.

davethornton commented on 2015-01-27 10:01

md5 for google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb is 848d4fe8d1bdce70d9bae82367aaadca now

grossws commented on 2015-01-23 00:03

md5 for google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb is 701b99a72579f36190f5c2e139151fe1 now

Det commented on 2015-01-15 16:01

You need to upgrade your AUR tool or Pacman for the arch-specific sources:

$ makepkg --version | head -1
makepkg (pacman) 4.2.0

$ yaourt --version | head -1
yaourt 1.5

notthenewsreader commented on 2015-01-15 15:52

==> Starting package()...
-> Extracting the data.tar.lzma...
bsdtar: Error opening archive: Failed to open 'data.tar.lzma'
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package()

I had to download the file directly and edit the PKGBUILD to manually set the directories so that it was pointing to where data.tar.lzma was.

Det commented on 2015-01-15 13:32

Updated for source/md5sums_i686/x86_64=().

speedyx commented on 2015-01-15 04:00

$ makepkg -i
==> ERROR: install file (google-chrome-beta.install) does not exist or is not a regular file.

speedyx commented on 2015-01-15 04:00

==> ERROR: install file (google-chrome-beta.install) does not exist or is not a regular file.

Det commented on 2015-01-01 15:11

Well, don't use --asroot.

joebonrichie commented on 2015-01-01 15:11

makepkg: invalid option '--asroot'
The build failed.

Det commented on 2014-12-19 04:56

By the way, that is totally fixed.

jhsnyder666 commented on 2014-11-21 00:33

$ md5sum google-chrome-beta_39.0.2171.62_amd64.deb
aacffeef91b7f154bfd2846a46263d56 google-chrome-beta_39.0.2171.62_amd64.deb
$ grep md5sum PKGBUILD
md5sums=('37acce2b4fe059bf4affec3f11867e0f'
[[ $CARCH = i686 ]] && md5sums[0]='d0477c537e1a2252effbdfce7c822ed9'
$

epitron commented on 2014-10-29 16:16

==> Validating source files with md5sums...
google-chrome-beta_39.0.2171.36_amd64.deb ... FAILED

The MD5 is 09bf23b50d371e979c28f75df9f3872a, when it should be 1dbad7720952d8e1c7c4518da4508bc1

af9210 commented on 2014-10-15 20:43

v39.0.2171.27 out

af9210 commented on 2014-10-09 22:57

@CharlesAtum just got updated for linux http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/10/beta-channel-update_52.html v39.0.2171.19

CharlesAtum commented on 2014-10-09 18:31

@af9210 Only for Windows and Mac: https://omahaproxy.appspot.com/
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com.br/2014/10/beta-channel-update_9.html

af9210 commented on 2014-10-09 18:18

v39.0.2171.13 is out

Det commented on 2014-09-18 18:38

Oh yeah :D?

Brottweiler commented on 2014-09-18 17:27

Uhm, validity check failed again...

Det commented on 2014-08-14 12:41

I get notified on that already.

FlutterRage commented on 2014-07-24 22:47

validy check failed for beta37 DEB.

Det commented on 2014-07-02 21:01

I get notified on that already.

rabcor commented on 2014-07-01 16:39

Flagged out of date; validity check of google-chrome-beta_36.0.1985.97_amd64.deb Failed.

reyncor commented on 2014-06-26 07:41

"sed: can't read /tmp/yaourt-tmp-johndoe/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/opt/google/chrome-beta/google-chrome: No such file or directory"

Any ideas? Tried rm'effing the entire yaourt temp, nada. The file is there. chmod'ing 777 does nothing, make'ing as root does nothing.

Det commented on 2014-06-04 00:30

No it isn't.

WoefulDerelict commented on 2014-06-03 23:59

Package is broken by updating to usb_modeswitch2.2.0-1. Chrome exits with an error stating it is unable to find libudev.so.O

Package flagged out of date.

obfu commented on 2014-05-27 20:13

Current Version and MD5 sums:
beta: 36.0.1985.32
fdd314798af0fdcf48c4fa2a7003109f google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb
9c7307a5f3fe4edfa83ab566dfbd0d0e google-chrome-beta_current_i386.deb

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-27 06:56

OK, found the answer to my own question below. This is a bug in the current debian package. The issue and simple fix is shown at https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=363358.

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-27 06:19

Anybody else using chrome-beta on Arch x64 - does google-talk-plugin currently work for you? It doesn't even appear in chrome://plugins/ for me.

bond0087 commented on 2014-04-25 17:07

For anyone else out there using Docky as a taskbar and having Google Chrome show up with the Google Keep icon rather than the correct icon: I fixed it by adding the following line to /usr/share/applications/google-chrome-beta.desktop :

StartupWMClass=google-chrome-beta

kerberizer commented on 2014-04-18 12:05

@Det, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I haven't quite realized a few things and they are certainly good to know -- I'll keep them in mind.

Det commented on 2014-04-18 11:55

No, I didn't think you were being ungrateful, it's just the best way to make sure the maintainer gets notified.

In case a package doesn't build (even with special instructions), you are allowed to flag it out-of-date, since that's still the only button we got: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18829

I usually, if I get a lot of comment notifications from many different packages, just delete all of them and take care of the packages that have been flagged anyway. So feel free to flag it, if it doesn't work.

E: Don't think of it as lazy just because we've made it such a simple function.

Det commented on 2014-04-18 11:53

No, I didn't think you were being ungrateful, it's just the best way to make sure the maintainer gets notified.

In case a package doesn't build (even with special instructions), you are allowed to flag it out-of-date, since that's still the only button we got: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18829

I usually, if I get a lot of comment notifications from many different packages, just delete all of them and take care of the packages that have been flagged anyway. So feel free to flag it, if it doesn't work.

kerberizer commented on 2014-04-18 11:35

@Det, if that comment was directed me: flagging a package out-of-date, especially when the package is in fact not outdated, is IMHO a rather non-descriptive and even confusing (not to mention lazy) way to notify the maintainer of some technical problem. My only desire was to be as helpful as possible, and I'm sorry if I might have offended or otherwise annoyed you somehow -- this certainly has not been my intention. In any case, many thanks indeed for maintaining these packages -- I know too well from my own experience how this can be a rather ungrateful task. ;)

Det commented on 2014-04-18 09:26

If there really was a problem with it, why couldn't you just _flag_ it out-of-date?

kerberizer commented on 2014-04-18 05:03

Oh, and of course the MD5 hash for x86_64 will also need to be updated.

kerberizer commented on 2014-04-18 04:56

@Det, could you please fix the tarball -- right now it erroneously contains a google-chrome-beta_35.0.1916.47_amd64.deb file, which is simply an HTML page with the Google's 404 error code. Hence why the package is broken, unless, of course, that file is removed manually. Thanks a lot!

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-18 04:25

If you really want it, the link https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb is valid so fetch that and replace it:

cd /tmp/yaourt-tmp-xxxx/aur-google-chrome-beta
cp ~/Downloads/google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb google-chrome-beta_35.0.1916.47_amd64.deb
makepkg -s --skipinteg
sudo pacman -U google-chrome-beta-35.0.1916.47-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz

Det commented on 2014-04-17 23:56

That is 'google-chrome'. People keep adding the '-stable' suffix, even though such package doesn't exist.

Det commented on 2014-04-17 23:56

That is 'google-chrome'. People keep adding the -stable prefix, even though such package doesn't exist.

brycec commented on 2014-04-17 22:32

Only Google could comment upon whether it will soon be fixed. If you wanted something more stable then you should run google-chrome-stable instead.

JesseObrien commented on 2014-04-17 20:53

Is there a fix for this coming? I'm getting a huge amount of crashes today and I can't upgrade.

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-16 22:26

Seems a google stuffup, the upstream amd64.deb is missing (404).

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-16 22:05

==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found google-chrome-beta_35.0.1916.47_amd64.deb
-> Downloading eula_text.html...
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 52500 0 52500 0 0 90980 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 90987
==> Validating source files with md5sums...
google-chrome-beta_35.0.1916.47_amd64.deb ... Passed
eula_text.html ... Passed
==> Extracting sources...
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting package()...
-> Extracting the data.tar.lzma
bsdtar: Error opening archive: Failed to open 'data.tar.lzma'
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build google-chrome-beta.

Det commented on 2014-04-10 22:05

I did too.

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-10 22:03

I fixed the error I reported above by changing that gzip line in the PKGBUILD to .../google-chrome-beta.1.

Det commented on 2014-04-10 21:52

Fixed.

bulletmark commented on 2014-04-10 21:49

This package updated today to 35.0.1916.27-1 but I am getting the following build error:

==> Starting package()...
-> Extracting the data.tar.lzma
-> Moving stuff in place
gzip: /tmp/yaourt-tmp-mark/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/usr/share/man/man1/google-chrome.1: No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
Aborting...

peterhu commented on 2014-03-19 19:55

For 34.0.1847.60-1 (x86-64), I'm getting a md5 mismatch: expecting 08c18ce9c91ebb3ced9978b0dca39239 but have 5a312386563cd41691671d530cac6c06.

bulletmark commented on 2014-03-08 02:24

Version 34.0.1847.45 locks up for me. I think it affects everybody with intel GPU as per https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=345595.

bulletmark commented on 2014-03-08 01:46

Version 34.0.1847.45-1 locks up for me also. Various extensions fail to load. Gone to stable and that seems ok.

wisecrick commented on 2014-03-06 08:14

Even worse, the browser itself usually hangs. I have to switch to google-chrome stable. It works very well.

kalpik commented on 2014-03-06 01:53

I have issues with flash too. Both Adobe flash and pepper flash. Browser hangs for a while, disk starts thrashing. Anyone knows why? Happens on dev too. Haven't tried stable yet.

wisecrick commented on 2014-03-05 03:10

Flash doesn't work at all! It always hangs!

tigrang commented on 2014-02-28 16:01

I guess I can't :)

Det commented on 2014-02-28 08:26

You can't prove that.

tigrang commented on 2014-02-28 01:10

It did fail when you had the chmod there without the -$_channel, but I see you remove that entire line now.

tigrang commented on 2014-02-28 01:10

It did fail when you had the chown there without the -$_channel, but I see you remove that entire line now.

Det commented on 2014-02-27 22:15

@tigrang, no it doesn't.

tigrang commented on 2014-02-27 21:52

The build fails...

Det commented on 2014-02-27 21:39

I'm not gonna change it.

tigrang commented on 2014-02-27 21:29

Change line to chmod go+rx "$pkgdir"/opt/google/chrome-$_channel/

Missing the -$_channel

tigrang commented on 2014-02-27 21:22

chmod: cannot access ‘/tmp/yaourt-tmp/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/opt/google/chrome/’: No such file or directory

Det commented on 2014-02-24 05:16

Removed "PKGEXT='.pkg.tar'" due to a request of having your own way through makepkg.conf.

gurqn commented on 2014-02-19 17:17

seems updated as .115 therefore md5 is >>> 4e4b993ad07bbc617662ad7a359f826e

bulletmark commented on 2014-01-24 08:28

@SimFox3, yep I found that also. Only the last couple or so versions.

SimFox3 commented on 2014-01-21 18:37

Does latest google-chrome-beta take a super long time to start for anyone else?

Det commented on 2014-01-16 22:14

Yeah, they did that in the 33.x branch.

Synced with Dev again.

CharlesAtum commented on 2014-01-16 22:08

Issue: install: impossível obter estado de “/tmp/yaourt-tmp-mateus/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/opt/google/chrome/product_logo_16.png”: Arquivo ou diretório não encontrado

Reason: There are now two folders inside /opt/google: chrome and chrome-beta. chrome has mostly symlinks and relevant files are now in chrome-beta

Fix: Change every reference in the PKGBUILD of /opt/google/chrome to /opt/google/chrome-beta

Det commented on 2014-01-14 09:42

It means there's a new version. We have the *flag* button for that. And it's much easier to just use "- - skipinteg" when updating on your own (might also wanna bump the pkgver).

yourilima commented on 2014-01-14 08:28

see comment below but instead use the following md5sum

da45c1f4e87d2edb3d1c208584af9078

SimFox3 commented on 2014-01-08 06:08

If for the x64 version you're gettin ga "One or more files did not pass validity check":

1. Edit the PKGBUILD
2. Change line 33 md5sum (for x86_64) to: a5ecefed3e037fb91584a5baeaa18eb9

Det commented on 2013-12-26 13:53

For those of you who have [testing] enabled: the new libgcrypt.so.20 (provided by: libgcrypt 1.6.0-1) is incompatible with _all_ versions of Chrome.

In order to update to the latest libgcrypt you need to rebuild this package, which will now pull the libgcrypt.so.11.8 from [core] (libgcrypt 1.5.3-1) to the install location (/opt/google/chrome/).

Alternatively you can just place the correct libgcrypt.so from the package to either /opt/google/chrome/ or /usr/lib/ and rename it as 'libgcrypt.so.11'.

kicka commented on 2013-12-19 15:20

Thanks CharlesAtum!

Your suggestion worked!

CharlesAtum commented on 2013-12-19 13:20

Looks like they moved the desktop file from the opt/google/chrome folder to the usr/share/applications folder.
Commenting the following lines should allow compilation and, possibly, solve the problem:

msg2 "Moving stuff in place"
# Desktop
mv "$pkgdir"/opt/google/chrome/google-chrome.desktop "$pkgdir"/usr/share/applications/

bulletmark commented on 2013-12-19 11:23

Yes, as the two below report, version 32.0.1700.68-1 (x86_64) fails to build with an error:

mv: cannot stat ‘/tmp/yaourt-tmp-mark/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/opt/google/chrome/google-chrome.desktop’: No such file or directory

kicka commented on 2013-12-19 06:50

same as tigrang

tigrang commented on 2013-12-19 03:58

On the latest build I'm getting:

mv: cannot stat ‘/tmp/yaourt-tmp/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/google-chrome-beta/opt/google/chrome/google-chrome.desktop’: No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().
Aborting...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build google-chrome-beta.

WhoNeedszzz commented on 2013-11-17 21:29

I can also confirm that this build is broken. Nothing will load, all extensions crash. Starting a new session does not fix.

leaeasy commented on 2013-11-14 01:29

32.0.1700.14-1 is out

peterhu commented on 2013-11-12 23:42

Anyone else experiencing constant tab crashes with 32.0.1700 (x86-64)? I had to switch over to the stable channel because nothing was working anymore.

lervag commented on 2013-09-26 06:54

==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build google-chrome-beta.

md5sum no longer matches for google-chrome-beta_30.0.1599.59_amd64.deb.

peterhu commented on 2013-08-14 18:22

I'm getting a md5sum of '283a045b991964a909caef072ace2f9b' for 'google-chrome-beta_29.0.1547.49_amd64.deb' and not 'f7e224c286f19dc0f3430bd7ebecf465' which is in the PKGBUILD.

Det commented on 2013-06-01 19:10

chrome://downloads/ is actually enough (or just placing the rpm in the build dir).

Det commented on 2013-06-01 19:09

chrome://downloads/ is actually enough.

Anonymous comment on 2013-06-01 16:08

As a workaround, you can go to the Chrome Beta install page, get it to give you a download, then visit chrome://cache and check what URL to use. For example, mine was:

https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm

Just edit the PKGBUILD before installing and change the source to whatever you need. The md5sum should continue to match.

Det commented on 2013-06-01 13:23

Well, then you don't know very far.

Nordlicht commented on 2013-06-01 11:32

Source Link isn't working longer. AFAIK google has stopped direct downloads.

unforgiven512 commented on 2013-05-23 04:19

It appears the latest version is causing a kernel panic on my laptop. I have tried with all combinations of linux{,-ck} and {nvidia-304xx{,-dkms},nouveau}.

I am able to use the official 'chromium' package without issue.

Det commented on 2013-05-01 22:25

It's enough to flag :p.

Anonymous comment on 2013-05-01 21:57

27.0.1453.73-197225

brycec commented on 2013-04-22 00:14

Current version appears to be 27.0.1453.56-194414
2b6a87b8664accb586e78f30baed237e google-chrome-beta-27.0.1453.56-194414.x86_64.rpm
a1d313ffdfdcfd54ff064d807dfe9e6d google-chrome-beta-27.0.1453.56-194414.i386.rpm

grossws commented on 2013-02-28 07:00

Link should be changed to
https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/${_arch}/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.${_arch}.rpm (https instead of plain http).

grossws commented on 2013-02-28 06:49

As I see current path is https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm

x86_64 md5 is 9e04ea1f10b9b7423dd8951773480d0d
current version is google-chrome-beta-26.0.1410.12-183726

Det commented on 2013-01-31 12:24

Btw. why aren't you updating this?

Det commented on 2013-01-14 20:54

@martincanaval: "The Chrome team is happy to announce the promotion of Chrome 25 to the beta channel for Windows, Mac, Linux and Chrome Frame. Chrome 25.0.1364.29 contains a number of new improvement"
- http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.fi/2013/01/beta-channel-update_14.html

It was just promoted to the Beta channel. The version number remains the same in these cases as well.

martincanaval commented on 2013-01-14 19:03

Aw man! they updated to 25. I hope it doesn't Segment Faults on me like the dev branch.

samuvuo commented on 2013-01-08 02:46

pkgver=24.0.1312.49
_verbld=24.0.1312.49-175109

x86_64: 8e404fa6607aaca82af75ef08edf95b7

Det commented on 2012-12-20 01:45

Well this one's really out-of-date.

ruario commented on 2012-12-13 07:03

$ wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm | head -c96 | strings
google-chrome-beta-24.0.1312.40-172509

Det commented on 2012-12-07 12:35

Woops.

ruario commented on 2012-09-12 08:32

@thehoff: No the source URL should not be changed. The correct way to do this is to work out the version information. One way to do this is as follows:

$ wget -qO- http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm | head -c96 | strings
google-chrome-beta-22.0.1229.52-156054

Then change pkgver and _verbld as follows:

pkgver=22.0.1229.52
_verbld=${pkgver}-156054

And the md5sums are as follows:

f1ef67a9a13a46487f17896c9a367303 google-chrome-beta-22.0.1229.52-156054.i386.rpm
a82395c7d3aa0be21d4a3053b95dc931 google-chrome-beta-22.0.1229.52-156054.x86_64.rpm

thehoff commented on 2012-09-10 04:13

Can change source url to http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm in PKGBUILD. Don't forget to update md5's also.

derblub commented on 2012-09-09 14:46

Last PKGBUILD seems to be broken - source is leading to 404

Det commented on 2012-08-12 10:58

Doing the same thing here.

Deb: http://pastebin.com/A7yZi1fZ

Rpm: http://pastebin.com/xV4P3NKm

pallegro commented on 2012-07-10 05:55

_verbld=21.0.1180.15-144745

mango commented on 2012-06-26 20:30

fixed PKGBUILD http://pastebin.com/C8zTTAfc

kicka commented on 2012-06-25 06:49

not working.It seems a link error to the google-chrome-beta source files.

nitrix commented on 2012-06-21 02:40

404 not found

t3ddy commented on 2012-06-02 14:07

I've added the workaround to the pkgbuild. You can remove the simlink to keep the system cleaner.

Anonymous comment on 2012-06-02 13:51

Fix for udevlib error: ln -sf /usr/lib/libudev.so.1.0.1 /usr/lib/libudev.so.0

wolfjb commented on 2012-06-02 03:50

Just updated google-chrome-beta after taking the update for systemd to replace udev, now google-chrome won't start. It gives the error

/usr/bin/google-chrome: error while loading shared libraries: libudev.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory.

Anonymous comment on 2012-04-26 01:55

Got a fix for the PKGBUILD. Here's the diff

PKGBUILD.new< >PKGBUILD.old
23c23
< md5sums=('eff59526737ea727a85d69006c184c61')
---
> md5sums=('f885d6a92f6e5516ee27bc354d92e075')
26c26
< md5sums=('e89e489afbf3599c7b32c336c1c6b27d')
---
> md5sums=('e1627a472f234672bc96552b4d124ace')
30c30
< source=("http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_${_arch}.rpm")
---
> source=("http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/${_arch}/google-chrome-${_channel}-${_verbld}.${_arch}.rpm")

Det commented on 2012-04-19 11:41

It's funny how you people always keep on doing that.

benoliver999 commented on 2012-04-14 11:27

Just dropping in to say I'm getting a 404 on the 64 bit version too.

samueldr commented on 2012-04-14 04:48

If you want to find the new package URL for the rpm, you can always find it in the repository information at this URL:
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz

Here is a COMPLETELY UNCLEAN one-liner to get the latest package name:
wget --quiet -O- http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz \
| gunzip | tidy -qmi -xml \
| grep 'location href="google-chrome-beta-.*rpm' \
| cut -d'"' -f2

Yes, parsing xml with a regex is asking for trouble. This *should not* go in the PKGBUILD. I only pasted this monstrosity here to have a quickfix for when google updates their repo.

Det commented on 2012-04-06 16:51

Google doesn't move the link anywhere. They just remove the old version when uploading the new one.

The link you provided is the general one. It's linked to the latest (and only) version.

thehoff commented on 2012-04-06 05:14

I get the md5 02975cf0faaf6b0417f7adf4c7a7afec, but I haven't been able to verify with google.

thehoff commented on 2012-04-06 05:13

Google moved the dl link to http://dl.google.com/dl/linux/direct/google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm; however, I don't know where they keep the md5 sums.

Anonymous comment on 2012-03-28 16:58

==> Retrieving Sources...
-> Downloading google-chrome-beta-18.0.1025.140-128625.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 --:--:-- 0:00:02 --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading google-chrome-beta-18.0.1025.140-128625.x86_64.rpm
Aborting...

Anonymous comment on 2012-03-27 08:41

Please replace libpng dependence with libpng12 as it is not starting without libpng12!

jpaechnatz commented on 2012-03-27 05:47

Isn't 18.0.1025.140 available?

darkxsun commented on 2012-03-14 16:29

This should depend on libpng12.

Det commented on 2012-03-14 12:48

The built-in Pepper Flash requires it.

Also "you can't build"? Your mom doesn't allow you to be on your computer for that long? It will fry your motherboard's PCB? What?

Errors, please.

rexcze commented on 2012-03-13 18:25

Hi, why we need openssl098? I can run and build it without it. (I can not build openssl098)

Anonymous comment on 2012-02-06 09:13

Wouldn't start for me until I installed chromium and its dependencies.

Det commented on 2012-01-24 20:43

I wonder why would you need to wait there.

t3ddy commented on 2012-01-24 19:08

It will be fixed in the next release.

Anonymous comment on 2012-01-24 18:31

I got "install: cannot stat `/tmp/packerbuild-1000/google-chrome-beta/google-chrome-beta/src/usr/share/man/man1/google-chrome.1': No such file or directory" - changing the .1 to .1.gz in the PKGBUILD fixed it for me.

t3ddy commented on 2012-01-19 15:58

what error did you get?

Dianoga commented on 2012-01-19 15:16

I had to manually remove the man page from the PKGBUILD for the latest to install

Anonymous comment on 2012-01-03 16:49

Important for all KDE-Users: Chrome uses from version 16 on the default KDE-dialogues. Therefore the packages kdebase-kdialog has to be installed. Otherwise Chrome won't show
any dialog-box under KDE.

Anonymous comment on 2011-11-03 18:50

Nice! Installed right beside Chromium and works great. Had to manually install the libpng12 dependency...well from AUR, but that went well also. Thanks!

moscwich commented on 2011-09-17 19:14

> Installed 93,55 Mb

It's cool ^)

TheRealSoup commented on 2011-09-01 07:11

Also got this

==> Validating source files with md5sums...
google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb ... FAILED

md5sum I get:
a85a80b928afe13fc622b52a2d9c0c64 google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb

nickread commented on 2011-09-01 06:54

Just tried to update twice and got an incorrect MD5 sum:
a85a80b928afe13fc622b52a2d9c0c64 google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb

Can anyone confirm if the MD5sum of the download is correct or ones in the PKGBUILD?

Anonymous comment on 2011-07-02 16:59

Thanks t3ddy.

t3ddy commented on 2011-06-30 16:44

this line: "ar -xv google-chrome-${_channel}_current_${_arch}.deb" extracts the deb
for rpm you need rpmextract

then you have to install the extracted files to the proper position into pkgdir

Anonymous comment on 2011-06-30 15:10

Arch Linux AUR Noob Question:

How do you use a non tarballed and gzipped source from another package manager (like debian or rpm) so that you can extract the source and build a package with makepkg?

Anonymous comment on 2011-05-23 19:55

Oh, I thank you for the answer.

t3ddy commented on 2011-05-23 19:26

The original .deb file has gconf as dependency, you could try remove it and see what happens

Anonymous comment on 2011-03-26 01:16

When pciutils now in testing enters core the libpci dependency should be dropped: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38263

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 21:25

That sounds absolutely correct. Thanks!

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-11 21:23

As I said before, in then next release I'll remove the grep in the "if", since I know there are files that contain that string.
Checking if there are files that contain that string, when I know that there are, is unecessary in my opinion.
Are you in accord with me (despite of my english :))?

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 21:13

I think I figured out the problem. I'm referring to the grep in the "if" section, and you're referring to the one in the "then" section. Keep the one in the "then" section as-is, without the "-q" (or pass "-s" if you want to suppress error messages). The one in the "if" part is only there to make sure that "/google/chrome" appears somewhere in the directory before you run sed, so you only need it to return the right code (0).

In sum, it should be:

if grep -Rlq "/google/chrome" * > /dev/null 2>&1
then
sed -i "s/google\/chrome/google-chrome/g" $(grep -Rls "/google/chrome" *)
fi

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-11 21:05

With -s I get exit code 2, but it gives me the files I'm looking for.
With -q I get exit code 0, but it doesn't give me the files I'm looking for.

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 20:39

I'm pretty sure that it should be either "-q" or "-qs" as "-s" doesn't change the exit status of the command, and thus wouldn't change the operation of the conditional. As an example: "echo string > realfile; ln -s fakefile brokenlink; grep -s string realfile brokenlink && echo success" prints realfile:string, but "echo string > realfile; ln -s fakefile brokenlink; grep -q string realfile brokenlink && echo success" prints (to stderr) grep: brokenlink: No such file or directory and (to stdout) success.

If you combine the two, you skip the error message and you get the right exit status.

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 20:39

I'm pretty sure that it should be either "-q" or "-qs" as "-s" doesn't change the exit status of the command, and thus wouldn't change the operation of the conditional. As an example: "echo string > realfile; ln -s fakefile brokenlink; grep -s string realfile brokenlink && echo success" prints realfile:string, but "echo string > realfile; ln -s fakefile brokenlink; grep -q string realfile brokenlink && echo success" prints (to stderr) grep: brokenlink: No such file or directory and (to stdout) success.

If you combine the two, you skip the error message and you get the right exit status.

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-11 20:27

Ah, ok.
Thanks for the explaination! :)

After some proof, the right flag should be -s, because -q neither tells the files.

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 19:49

Because if there's a symlink to a nonexistent file in there, grep throws an error when it tries to read it. Skipping the conditional should work just fine.

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-11 19:44

mmm... I don't understand quite well.
With grep I'm searching in pkgdir, why should it be important if chrome has been already installed or not?

Anyway, I was planning to keep only this part: sed -i "s/google\/chrome/google-chrome/g" $(grep -Rl "/google/chrome" *)
and removing the "if-fi", since there's no reason to check if there are those kind of occurences, because they're present and I know that.
What do you think?

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 19:06

The pkgbuild *almost* corrects this. Here's the skinny: the installation makes symlinks inside the pkgdir to things outside of it. It then runs a test with grep to fix the issue I raised. If the things outside the pkgdir don't exist, i.e. google-chrome isn't already installed as of the time that it's being built, the grep returns a non-zero exit and the sed thereafter doesn't execute.

You can fix this by running the grep with a "-q" which will return success on the first hit and will otherwise ignore errors. The sed is fine as is.

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-11 17:50

I don't want to say something stupid, but the pkgbuild corrects this. So, could it be a problem of cache? I don't know :/

dhaines commented on 2011-01-11 17:19

I installed this (via aurget) and /usr/share/applications/google-chrome.desktop points to /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome, while the actual executable (script) is at /opt/google-chrome/google-chrome. Thus, the Applications menu item no longer works.

t3ddy commented on 2011-01-08 11:48

Updated, sorry but I was away :)

Det commented on 2011-01-06 19:43

@jwhendy, this package has already been flagged out of date, as 9.0.597.44 was released earlier today.

jwhendy commented on 2011-01-06 15:34

64bit md5sum is incorrect. As of 1/6/2011, it is 'fbdb6a710367f5cee6f03dd6afff405e'

Anonymous comment on 2010-12-17 09:14

last beta version is 9.0.597.19

you have to change pkgver only

master commented on 2010-12-16 21:32

Could you please update to the latest version?

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-09 20:23

ok, now it works :D
Thanks x-demon :)

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-09 07:56

what if i just remove the patch? I do not think that this is needed in -beta build...

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-08 18:34

I have the same problem as fresh24 when upgrading.

Anonymous comment on 2010-10-07 14:06

args.patch needs to be updated to:

-exec -a "$0" "$HERE/chrome" "$@"
+exec -a "$0" "$HERE/chrome" --enable-extension-timeline-api --internal-nacl --enable-gpu-plugin --enable-webgl --enable-internal-flash "$@"

fresh24 commented on 2010-10-04 17:53


-> Done extracting!
==> Preparing install
„opt/google“ -> „/tmp/yaourt-tmp-chris/aur-google-chrome-beta/pkg/opt/google“
-> Done preparing!
==> Patching launcher
patching file google-chrome
Hunk #1 FAILED at 30.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file google-chrome.rej
Breche ab ...
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build google-chrome-beta.

Det commented on 2010-09-08 19:04

Well that was fast... but still, the first line of the PKGBUILD...

Anonymous comment on 2010-09-08 19:02

eek, i thought i changed it. Will fix.

Det commented on 2010-09-08 19:02

Ok, thank you very dearly then but it doesn't touch the fact that a PKGBUILD shouldn't have both 'contributor' and 'maintainer' lines when defining the same user.

Also is there a specific reason you didn't change/update the pkgver to '6.0.472.55' on the same go you came here to answer my comment?

Det commented on 2010-09-08 19:02

Ok, thank you very dearly, then, but it doesn't touch the fact that a PKGBUILD shouldn't have both 'contributor' and 'maintainer' lines when defining the same user.

Also is there a specific reason you didn't change/update the pkgver to '6.0.472.55' on the same go you came here to answer my comment?

Det commented on 2010-09-08 19:01

Ok, thank-you dearly, then but it doesn't touch the fact that a PKGBUILD shouldn't have both 'contributor' and 'maintainer' lines when defining the same user.

Also is there a specific reason you didn't change/update the pkgver to '6.0.472.55' on the same go you came here to answer my comment?

Anonymous comment on 2010-09-08 16:23

all chrome pkgbuilds has been completely rewritten by me.

Det commented on 2010-09-08 15:56

Why did you add yourself as both a maintainer and a contributor to the beginning of the PKGBUILD? The maintainer line is meant for whoever is the current maintainer and no matter how many times (s)he has been adopting/disowning the package you still get only one entry. The contributor lines are for previous maintainers - one for each one them, too.

Additionally there should be a "Based on [a-package-name]" line if you started out with somebody else's work.

Det commented on 2010-09-08 15:55

Why did you add yourself as both a maintainer and a contributor? The maintainer line is meant for whoever is the current maintainer and no matter how many times has (s)he been adopting/disowning the package you still get only one entry. The contributor lines are for previous maintainers - one for each one.

Additionally there should be a "Based on [a-package-name]" line if you started out with somebody else's work.

Eothred commented on 2010-09-03 07:23

Nice package, two comments:
1. Shouldn't the .deb file be in the source array?
2. Shouldn't you include the EULA in /usr/share/doc/ ? The eula can be found at this link: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html

I'd consider a source array which looks something like this, instead of using wget (move it just before build()):
source=('args.patch'
"EULA.html::http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html"
"google-chrome-${_chanswitch}-${pkgver}-${ARCH}.deb::http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-${_chanswitch}_current_$ARCH.deb"
)

caspian commented on 2010-05-10 11:00

@Ioann: thanks! I've replaced those now as well, but still nothing... :(

Ioann commented on 2010-05-10 08:17

I am not the mantainer, but on my installation I have got icons also under /opt/google/chrome.

caspian commented on 2010-05-10 06:53

One question for the maintainer: I want to change the default chrome icon with the one from my icon theme. In kde menu the right icon is shown, but in the task manager the default chrome icon is shown. I've replaced all the icons that came with the package (the ones in /usr/share/icons and /usr/share/icons/hicolor), but this didn't solve the problem. Do you know how to solve this, or are there some more icons that come with the package (although I doubt this)?

Anonymous comment on 2010-05-06 05:02

This package is really hard to be out of date since it just fetches "google-chrome-beta_current_amd64.deb" from google.com ... however the version it fetches is newer than what the package name reflects. Currently as of now this package installs "5.0.375.29 beta" according to the about dialog inside chrome.

Ioann commented on 2010-04-25 22:03

At first opening downloaded files (e.g. by clicking the file on the download bar) from Chrome didn't worked, i later discovered it is caused by missing "xdg-open" tool. Solved by installing package "xdg-utils". Should it be added to dependencies?

Anonymous comment on 2010-04-01 06:56

unmarking.

Anonymous comment on 2010-03-26 20:00

SSL isn't so happy right now because of this http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=37722
Workaround would be to go to Options>Under the Hood and tick Use SSL 2.0 - but do so at your own risk as 2.0 has some security problems associated. A fix for this is in the beta channel now so once this package updates this shouldn't happen anymore.

AapoAlas commented on 2010-03-26 05:23

hdoria: Yeah, every time I try to upload something (at least a picture file), Chrome plummets down in a fiery spiral of death.

Additionally SSL seems to have some problems (Gmail complains.)

Anonymous comment on 2010-03-26 02:32

Anyone having problems when trying to attach/upload a jpg file?

Anonymous comment on 2010-03-25 14:35

5.0.342.7 is out.