From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E383C138770 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D64A321C001; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30658E052E for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kp14so1220364pab.33 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:07:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nwdtj2DkpHk8HQLZ4UcE+giyoQYzW4UmH3pUwg/PNVs=; b=I1H/4PxazBDB/lxWG0teDqsdURlSmULb386hfWMsX3J0z0JW8vkGxxpYy+Ai8j7/et psG0Qycwg6liF22BvWSxjrAUgIeIxbLZULHpPCKbMexh2cRkg0+9P0+lKrXXqYhmvNT4 +g/PUQiUoKBbdOUnuOQxEViug5GnGazMjRgrHQ/tL7A+FTP89QHzqUE8rxzsh9kZu2zc h5GlSn+zaLaAy8IvyA4BKWw1ahipnPz1Q2wLvMVmMTayF/HYhhr4DOzYipq5thZjrYoz +zhH11GCQ7DrKZDQDUrUokJdO5sDvZ+UpN36JlMF1bgWwINz3mIsGFViRungkuqsTbdI vY5g== X-Received: by 10.68.203.198 with SMTP id ks6mr14618580pbc.35.1359569220049; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (triband-mum-59.182.3.213.mtnl.net.in. [59.182.3.213]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6sm2714648paw.19.2013.01.30.10.06.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:06:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:39:24 +0530 From: Yohan Pereira To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies? Message-ID: <20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: b01367a1-b9b4-4d55-9bc4-c30c3b9553ba X-Archives-Hash: f2ff512cc21ae33ff4b389e737686265 On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: > Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wondering if it is > safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library breakages on > this? > > Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you don't have a > broken browser, which won't really be the case with the binary > version. I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while and never had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update that could potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a blocker so you wont be able to install the 2 at the same time. I have since migrated to chromium (on account of getting a more powerful processor). The chromium compile took a hell of a long time on my old dual core. Even on my fx8150 it still takes about an hour. -- - Yohan Pereira The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. -- Mark Twain