From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-144877-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C528913878C
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:56:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b12so1131950qca.32
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
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: <CAJ0EP43p+BpbZcQSTDt=fSOojnC2wJMkaSMJGT7N_D3Y+3CkKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHgBc-uMOTJqQaPYYw2QxLwM0O5KbcOxi7poM=8Busfwgf5pjg@mail.gmail.com>
<20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> <CAJ0EP43p+BpbZcQSTDt=fSOojnC2wJMkaSMJGT7N_D3Y+3CkKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nilesh Govindrajan <me@nileshgr.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:14 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHgBc-tcm8Pj5TN3gN_vW+ZkVep0LRmvhR=Ffq4aESoDOPTv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies?
To: Gentoo User Mailing List <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
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 <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira <yohan.pereira@gmail.com> 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