Google Chrome 64-bit packages - [CLOSED]

Message

Mike Walsh · #81 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 02 Dec 2016, 19:50

Hi, orrin.

Strange you should say that; mine's still reporting the 'beta' version I've been using for the last fortnight. Hmmm; methinks a wee bit of investigating is called for. May take me a while, though....

Leave it with me.

BTW: Just had a thought. What does 'chrome://version' (in the address bar) give you?

Mike.

Mike Walsh · #82 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 02 Dec 2016, 21:36

Hi, orrin.

Sorry about this! Try it again, mate; I re-uploaded the correct version this time.....

I'm too embarrassed to tell you what I did..! Suffice it to say I made (*lowers voice dramatically*) a 'bit of a boo-boo.....' (*sigh*)

Even us so-called 'experts' make 'em.....frequently. (And I'm far from being an 'expert'..!) I've got that many versions of Chrome floating around my hard drive, sometimes I don't know whether I'm coming or going....

It's the right one, this time. Scout's honour!

Mike.

orrin · #83 Post by **orrin** » Fri 02 Dec 2016, 22:11

Mike Walsh wrote:Hi, orrin.

Sorry about this! Try it again, mate; I re-uploaded the correct version this time.....

I'm too embarrassed to tell you what I did..! Suffice it to say I made (*lowers voice dramatically*) a 'bit of a boo-boo.....' (*sigh*)

Even us so-called 'experts' make 'em.....frequently. (And I'm far from being an 'expert'..!) I've got that many versions of Chrome floating around my hard drive, sometimes I don't know whether I'm coming or going....

It's the right one, this time. Scout's honour!

Looks good now!

Mike Walsh · #84 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 02 Dec 2016, 23:46

Good, good, good.....

Glad that's sorted..! (*phew*)

Mike.

Mike Walsh · #85 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Sat 03 Dec 2016, 16:18

It appears that from version 55, PepperFlash is disabled by default, and HTML5 is automatically enabled. If you want to run Flash-based content on a non-HTML5 site, you have to specifically allow it to do so...

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s ... y-default/

It's a step in the right direction! Nice one, Google.

Mike.

orrin · #86 Post by **orrin** » Sat 03 Dec 2016, 18:33

Mike Walsh wrote:It appears that from version 55, PepperFlash is disabled by default, and HTML5 is automatically enabled. If you want to run Flash-based content on a non-HTML5 site, you have to specifically allow it to do so...

My flash settings are as they were with 54. Maybe they will change with a clean
new installation but just changing the SFS file left all the setting as they were!

jake29 · #87 Post by **jake29** » Sun 04 Dec 2016, 08:21

Thanks Mike. The new v55 sfs is working well here. Using the beta, I would still encounter system lock-up with too many (heavy website?) tabs. Maybe things will differ with this stable version.

Mike Walsh · #88 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 09 Dec 2016, 23:42

Evening, all.

Just downloaded, extracted and 'installed' the beta of Chrome 56 (56.0.2924.21) into my 'remote' partition for Tahr64 & Slacko64. So far, looking pretty good, and running as smooth as so much oiled silk.....seems a touch faster, so it would appear that Google's claim to have cut down on RAM usage is holding water.

I'll run this for the next couple of weeks, and detail any 'issues', if, as & when they crop up. Not that I really anticipate any.....but you never know.

Mike.

peebee · #89 Post by **peebee** » Sat 10 Dec 2016, 09:42

Hi Mike

I'm having problems with the 55 series of Chromium so tried your 64-bit Chrome-55 to compare....

I note your sfs is shipping with pepperflash-23.0.0.185 whereas the latest is 23.0.0.207....going to chrome://components allows update

If I go to BBC iPlayer, videos do play in your chrome-55 (they don't in the chromium-55 I've been testing) however I get lots and lots of error messages and crashes - I'll pm you the messages....

Cheers
peebee

jake29 · #90 Post by **jake29** » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 13:49

Hi Mike, hope you are okay. A new stable build (55.0.2883.105) was released last week.

Mike Walsh · #91 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 15:14

Hi, Jake.

We-e-e-lll.....according to the Chrome release blog, that was an update for the Stable channel of Chrome OS (the operating system for Chromebooks); not the Chrome browser. I'll have a look, but I don't think the browser's been updated for a while. The next release for the stable version of Chrome is scheduled for about a week's time, AFAIK.

I'll check it out, and let you know what I discover.

Mike.

Mike Walsh · #92 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 15:35

Hi again, Jake.

Yep; just checked. The version you have should be 55.0.2883.75; the one currently on offer is 55.0.2883.87.....not 55.0.2883.105. I checked out the current build a couple of weeks ago, and there was so little changed that I figured it would be better to wait for the release of 56 at the end of this month. There's apparently quite a few changes on the way.

I've been testing the beta of 56 for a while now, but I don't like making beta versions available for general use, as I explained before. The stable version is called 'stable' for a reason.....

Just be patient for a few more days; as soon as 56 is released, I'll re-package it. Scout's honour..!

Mike.

jake29 · #93 Post by **jake29** » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 18:39

Thanks Mike. Apologies for the error. I should have known better than to assume you were asleep at the wheel.

Mike Walsh · #94 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 20:46

Hi, Jake.

Nah, that's alright, mate. Not only are all the forums very quiet at the moment, but I've got a few other irons in the fire myself, so I haven't been spending as much time at my usual pursuits as I normally do.

It'll change; it always does. You can guarantee things will be quiet after Xmas & the New Year; happens every year without fail..!

Roll on spring time....

Mike.

Mike Walsh · #95 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Thu 26 Jan 2017, 17:36

(**deleted**)

orrin · #96 Post by **orrin** » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 02:30

Mike Walsh wrote:***NEW VERSION***

Afternoon, all.

The current version, 56.0.2924.76, released yesterday, is now available for download from the usual location.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/l8lkuo ... S_packages

Details of 'fixes' available here, for those interested in such things:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/

I got version 56... so far no issues... seems to work fine!
Thanks for your efforts!

Mike Walsh · #97 Post by **Mike Walsh** » Sat 28 Jan 2017, 16:52

You're very welcome, orrin. As always..!

Like I said, it's darned annoying about the sand-boxing.....but, in much the same way that Oscar describes his packages as experimental, that's really what these are, too.

The 32-bit packages of SlimJet and Iron have been working that way for long enough... All depends just how much it bothers you, I guess.

I think this has got something to do with the 'root:root' ownership permissions on the 'chrome' folder.....but I don't really know how you go about changing those away from 'root'.

Mike.

orrin · #98 Post by **orrin** » Sun 29 Jan 2017, 03:10

Mike Walsh wrote:You're very welcome, orrin. As always..!

Like I said, it's darned annoying about the sand-boxing.....but, in much the same way that Oscar describes his packages as experimental, that's really what these are, too.

Maybe you can point me to a link that explains what sand-boxing is and why do I need it!

drunkjedi · #99 Post by **drunkjedi** » Sun 29 Jan 2017, 05:40

orrin wrote:Maybe you can point me to a link that explains what sand-boxing is and why do I need it!

Maybe this link will help, or confuse you all together...
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chrom ... 2065670614

Also take a look at this discussion too,
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=109527

@Mike, I haven't been using latest chrome for long time.
I just got busy in other things.
I will see if Fatdog's run as spot scripts make it run good when I go home from work (I am in maintenance so have to work when everyone's not).

drunkjedi · #100 Post by **drunkjedi** » Sun 29 Jan 2017, 11:30

Fatdog's Get chrome script downloads latest, repackages it in .txz format (keeps copy in /root folder), and installs it.

The latest chrome is working as Spot, with Sandboxing.
As shown in pics.

Here's download link for sfs for Fatdog.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/z2cq31riw ... ficial.sfs

Or You can make one yourself
If you have fatdog, run fresh, click on the Google chrome entry in menu>>Internet.
It will install chrome but you will also get the package in /root.
Move it where you want to work on it.

Unpack it by rightclicking and selecting "Extract Tarball".
Right click the extracted directory and select "Permissions", select "a+x (Make executable/searchable)" option, enable "Recurse" tick mark click "Quiet".
Open terminal in the extracted directory and run following commands in a row

Code: Select all

chown -R root ./opt/google/
chmod 4755 ./opt/google/chrome/chrome-sandbox
mkdir ./usr/lib64
ln -s /usr/lib64/seamonkey/*.so ./usr/lib64/
rm -r ./install
cd ..
mksquashfs ./google-chrome-01292017-x86_64-official ./google-chrome-01292017-x86_64-official.sfs

That should give you a working .sfs for Fatdog.
Now reboot fatdog without saving, and boot normally to test that sfs.

I haven't tested extensively as I just came from work. Will see later...

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Google Chrome 64-bit packages - [CLOSED]