https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RlkKQB1POSQlZ1OUljT3p6U1U/edit?usp=sharing
2014-04-04 1:49 GMT+03:00 Νικόλαος Γεωργόπουλος :
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RlkKQB1POSWmFiT0REeG1QS28/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
> 2014-04-03 18:43 GMT+03:00 Johnny Hughes :
>
>> On 04/02/2014 10:49 AM, Leon
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RlkKQB1POSWmFiT0REeG1QS28/edit?usp=sharing
2014-04-03 18:43 GMT+03:00 Johnny Hughes :
> On 04/02/2014 10:49 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
> > Am 13.03.2014 um 20:05 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
> >> On 03/13/2014 12:43 PM, teltel wrote:
> >>> Johnny,
> >>> Thanks for th
On 04/02/2014 10:49 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
> Am 13.03.2014 um 20:05 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
>> On 03/13/2014 12:43 PM, teltel wrote:
>>> Johnny,
>>> Thanks for the Chromium 31 build; it works great.
>>> Are you planning on continuing support for Chromium-32 for CentOS and
>>> beyond?
>>> Stable re
Am 13.03.2014 um 20:05 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
> On 03/13/2014 12:43 PM, teltel wrote:
>> Johnny,
>> Thanks for the Chromium 31 build; it works great.
>> Are you planning on continuing support for Chromium-32 for CentOS and
>> beyond?
>> Stable release seems to be at 33 now for Chrome.
>
> If we c
chromium-33.0.1750.152-2.el6.i686.rpmhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9RlkKQB1POSNzd3WE9qY2ZqVGc/editchromium-33.0.1750.152-2.src.i686.rpmhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9RlkKQB1POSbDhQckF4VVBSaEk/edit
--
View this message in context:
http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-Chromium-31-0-16
On 03/13/2014 12:43 PM, teltel wrote:
> Johnny,
> Thanks for the Chromium 31 build; it works great.
> Are you planning on continuing support for Chromium-32 for CentOS and
> beyond?
> Stable release seems to be at 33 now for Chrome.
If we can get them to build, yes. So far we can not.
signatur
Johnny,
Thanks for the Chromium 31 build; it works great.
Are you planning on continuing support for Chromium-32 for CentOS and
beyond?
Stable release seems to be at 33 now for Chrome.
Best
Troy
--
View this message in context:
http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-Chromium-31-0-1650-63-2-
Am 17.02.2014 um 15:34 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
> On 02/16/2014 04:45 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
>> Am 15.02.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
>>> What this means for all Chromium users is that after upgrade, you will
>>> no longer have built in flash. I apologize for the inconvenience, but
>>> we
On 02/16/2014 04:45 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
> Am 15.02.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
>> What this means for all Chromium users is that after upgrade, you will
>> no longer have built in flash. I apologize for the inconvenience, but
>> we have no real choice in the matter.
> i haven't follo
On 16 February 2014 @14:27 zulu, Darr247 wrote:
> downloads that package
should be
"downloads a missing package"
Sorry. :-|
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 16 February 2014 @11:10 zulu, Giorgio Bersano wrote:
> Student: "Can we run Chrome?"
> Me: "Well, in his farsighted view Google decided it is uninterested
> to have it running on the prominent linux enterprise distribution.
> It worked in the past but after version 31 they made it impossible to
2014-02-16 8:54 GMT+01:00 Robert Arkiletian :
> Me: "Hey students, we are using a premier LTS Linux distro, look at
> all you can do!"
> Student: "Can we run Chrome?"
> Me: " Well.no, not on our version."
Hi Robert,
better you make it clear:
Me: "Hey students, we are using a premier LTS Linux
Am 15.02.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Johnny Hughes :
> What this means for all Chromium users is that after upgrade, you will
> no longer have built in flash. I apologize for the inconvenience, but
> we have no real choice in the matter.
i haven't follow this chromium technology discussion right now, t
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
...
> Personally, even though I like chromium, if google can't be bothered to
> support EL6, then I say that is their loss and I'll just use firefox.
>
+1
But
Me: "Hey students, we are using a premier LTS Linux distro, look at
all you can do!"
On 02/15/2014 08:38 PM, Darr247 wrote:
> Are you sure that's not against the law?
>
> Putting non-open files in/opt/chromium-browser/PepperFlash/ seems worse
> to me than putting open source files from f15 in /opt/google/chrome/lib
> which Jim Perrin (on 27 Oct 2013 @19:24 zulu in this list) said
Are you sure that's not against the law?
Putting non-open files in/opt/chromium-browser/PepperFlash/ seems worse
to me than putting open source files from f15 in /opt/google/chrome/lib
which Jim Perrin (on 27 Oct 2013 @19:24 zulu in this list) said should
be a criminal offense.
e.g. as a resul
If you haven't already, would you put this on the wiki for searchable reference?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
All,
As has already been brought up, we have not yet been able to build the
new version of Chromium-32 for CentOS, and the current version
(31.0.1650.63-1.el6) needs updating.
We have also recently been informed that we may not redistribute the
PepperFlash Library from the Google site (libpepflas
18 matches
Mail list logo
