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 C528913878C for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C872A21C03A; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com (mail-qc0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40FD5E031D for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b12so1131950qca.32 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Gmo2lWD9XoT2UQzNN0wbkYlboa39Cz2yH7WFFXxfCis=; b=ihOINLLtNcYRE9gNNu0KBsR1FIOX2zXI16WO06wwHCx9RBx+1M+kDzVZHcaBQqMsyX AJlGv6+HsAXzxIBxgRVlfnIUQNbCaDGc+/4yFQh/T3J8D6sgaZWLt50w4CNNYpMUCgiN kqxDojyaDSltRufX/1lI0qvUn442ykBr050H87D3I0jFYaD37q3LU4vBhRE/wdjQU9xM wbm7frXGsYCUkS4OefZaEM+tIgJJQhAgL5O8+PMkEv4DXyfGThet9sDj4Yc1YYQHsllZ LbowozRJQfuU8+n9ctSGc1aKTZG6ZAsdT0Uy9ArDAXygKlqGWffDe2FzY/0k2HZd08E4 S06A== X-Received: by 10.49.38.98 with SMTP id f2mr9082839qek.32.1359615414142; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:54 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.49.104.197 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> From: Nilesh Govindrajan Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:14 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies? To: Gentoo User Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn8RUkbEPWabBR3VsUlVisdnJqq25IPSCCW0hOGHNqa/yxPouvkksv5dpjJEk7SDaFSNtp1 X-Archives-Salt: 3cdd6345-4053-4db7-a508-fe0237dbba76 X-Archives-Hash: 19acaa6553c78549ca76a8ba95dbb8ff On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira wrote: >> 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. >> > > Or I can just bundle a copy of the necessary libraries, similar to > what I have done for libudev.so.0. > Sounds good. I guess I'll switch to binary chrome then. -- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com