Package Details: ungoogled-chromium-bin 70.0.3538.77-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/ungoogled-chromium-bin.git (read-only)
Package Base: ungoogled-chromium-bin
Description: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration and enhancing privacy, control, and transparency (binary version)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Keywords: chromium
Licenses: BSD
Conflicts: chromium, iridium, ungoogled-chromium
Provides: chromium
Submitter: evrea
Maintainer: SantoZ
Last Packager: SantoZ
Votes: 14
Popularity: 4.108145
First Submitted: 2018-05-31 02:51
Last Updated: 2018-10-30 15:45

Dependencies (19)

Required by (36)

Sources (3)

Pinned Comments

SantoZ commented on 2018-10-30 15:52

Just updated the package to 70.0.3538.77, hope I don't have more problems related to the source URL.

Built package of ungoogled-chromium (if you can trust me)

https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/WM29ymnyiKC9nDb/download

sha256sum: ef650ca0ba186908b49e52262bbdf4d28268a83c6c2a1638898ffe5f16e8a947

Woelkli will probably kick me because of bandwidth usage, if that happens, I'll switch to github or gitlab.

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last »

SantoZ commented on 2018-10-30 15:52

Just updated the package to 70.0.3538.77, hope I don't have more problems related to the source URL.

Built package of ungoogled-chromium (if you can trust me)

https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/WM29ymnyiKC9nDb/download

sha256sum: ef650ca0ba186908b49e52262bbdf4d28268a83c6c2a1638898ffe5f16e8a947

Woelkli will probably kick me because of bandwidth usage, if that happens, I'll switch to github or gitlab.

polyzen commented on 2018-10-20 16:46

@SantoZ To respect the policy of Arch Aur i removed the binary from github

Another example of hosting on GitHub: https://github.com/maximbaz/chromium-vaapi-bin

There's hardly any difference in hosting your prebuilt binaries on GH rather than anywhere else.

rEnr3n commented on 2018-10-20 09:38

@intika There are plenty of binary packages in the aur. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=-bin

And the reason why binary packages are provided is mainly because of compile times. It's not necessary for me to install a binary package if it compiles for a few seconds/minutes. But I would start looking for binaries if it's taking hours to compile.

SantoZ commented on 2018-10-20 05:57

@intika

oh well, I'll store the package somewhere else.

And sorry for so many releases guys, I'll try to stop releasing more changes.

intika commented on 2018-10-20 00:49

@SantoZ Yes :) but in not the idea/rule behind it, is that the user build what he install and does not get a built package ?

SantoZ commented on 2018-10-19 12:47

@intika

The aur policies don't work that way lol, one can't distribute in an AUR package the resulting .pkg.tar.xz from executing makepkg, it doesn't say the same for other binaries, so your binaries from github are fine to use in this package, it is the .pkg.tar.xz that I pinned that I can't use directly in this package.

intika commented on 2018-10-19 08:21

@SantoZ To respect the policy of Arch Aur i removed the binary from github

The file will need to be downloaded manually

Users can get the file from OpenDesktop.org https://www.opendesktop.org/c/1538485969 Or https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries/

Users will have to manually download and put the .tar.xz file inside the directory where the PKGBUILD is.

intika commented on 2018-10-14 04:36

@SantoZ by the way i am thinking of something... as its not allowed to distribute binary on aur, i think it will be more appropriate to just link github.com/repo/releases to download the build manually instead of embedding everything like now plus this will force user to check what they are downloading

intika commented on 2018-10-14 04:18

@SantoZ Quote "but I don't really trust github" looooooooool are you serious ? you seem a little bit paranoid ^^ i can understand but i think it's a little too much, secret services etc are using a whole other level of espionage. don't you think ? now for this project the possible potential risk is malware/home-coocked-spyware, this project have AT MOST 1000 active users, where a big part of them are IT related guys. the effort for such a malware is not worth it at all the risk here is almost null regarding the situation... if i am to build some malicious browser stuff i will just create some random chrome/firefox extensions i will get more users etc. or use an other possibility if i have to think like a black-hat hacker

SantoZ commented on 2018-10-14 01:10

@intika

yeah, I just want to give people choices, they can trust me and install my binary, your built version and mine both work well, but yours doesn't have the VA-API thing, so if people don't really care about VA-API they can use your binary.

And it also comes to trust, I thing users will trust more a build that is related more to upstream than a build by some guy in the internet.

If they still won't trust us, he can just build the package itself, but it will take time and resources.

Also, I'd like to be part of eloston's binary thing but I don't really trust github. ;)