Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 18 Aug 2017, 07:01
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 10 of 11 [158 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Author Message
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 07:39    Post subject:  

***NEW VERSION***

Evening, all.

The current stable version, 59.0.3071.86, released yesterday, is now available for download from the usual location.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/l8lkuo39z6gq8/Chrome_SFS_packages

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

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Details for the first-time enabling of the new PepperFlash update system can be found here:-

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=928393#928393

There's a shed-load of 'fixes' in this new release; more so than usual. One interesting feature is that Chrome can now run in what's called 'headless' mode, for devs who want to test out code without running the UI.

Have fun.


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 101
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 13:12    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:

Evening, all.

The current stable version, 59.0.3071.86, released yesterday, is now available for download from the usual location.


For some reason, version 59 will not start in my Slacko 64-6.3.2!

I went back to version 58!

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
jake29

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 16:03    Post subject:  

Cannot start 59.0.3071.86 (Slacko64 build) in Fatdog64. No issues with previous versions.
Code:
# google-chrome
/usr/bin/google-chrome: error while loading shared libraries: libgtk-3.so.0: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 19:12    Post subject:  

@ orrin, jake29:-

Hm. Odd. I've been 'beta' testing Chrome 59 till very recently, and it's been running perfectly in Slacko64 (though my version is the original 6.3.0). There could be a different layout for some things in 6.3.2; that's the UEFI version, isn't it?

@Jake:-

Libgtk-3.so.0... You're running FatDog, yes? My guess is you've got the same problem that exists in Slacko64. In Tahr, /usr/lib64 is symlinked into /usr/lib.....so any 64-bit ELF will show up in both directories. Slacko, on the other hand, doesn't have this sym-link.....so libs must go into the correct directory to start with. I always have this problem when I'm constructing .pets or SFS packages for both of these 64-bit Pups; if there's any scripts involved that call for libs in one location or the other, I always have to write the Slacko version differently to the Tahr version, to take account of this.

Have a look in /usr/lib, and in /usr/lib64. Check 'Properties for libgtk-3.so.0, when you find it.....and let me know what ELF class each one gives, please? You may need to add a sym-link in for libgtk-3.so.0, though I'm surprised that it's suddenly giving problems with this release, especially given that the beta of 59 has worked flawlessly.

The problem being, of course, that there's no way to open up the Chrome binary in opt/google/chrome, to see what paths they've coded into it..... If there is, I don't know how you do this, I'm afraid.


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
jake29

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 19:40    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
@Jake:-

Libgtk-3.so.0... You're running FatDog, yes? My guess is you've got the same problem that exists in Slacko64. In Tahr, /usr/lib64 is symlinked into /usr/lib.....so any 64-bit ELF will show up in both directories. Slacko, on the other hand, doesn't have this sym-link.....so libs must go into the correct directory to start with. I always have this problem when I'm constructing .pets or SFS packages for both of these 64-bit Pups; if there's any scripts involved that call for libs in one location or the other, I always have to write the Slacko version differently to the Tahr version, to take account of this.

Have a look in /usr/lib, and in /usr/lib64. Check 'Properties for libgtk-3.so.0, when you find it.....and let me know what ELF class each one gives, please? You may need to add a sym-link in for libgtk-3.so.0, though I'm surprised that it's suddenly giving problems with this release, especially given that the beta of 59 has worked flawlessly.

Yes, I'm running the latest Fatdog64 (v710).

Code:
# file libgdk-3.so.0
libgdk-3.so.0: symbolic link to libgdk-3.so.0.1800.7
# file libgdk-3.so.0.1800.7
libgdk-3.so.0.1800.7: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped


libgtk-3.so.0 exists in /usr/lib, but not /usr/lib64. Adding it to the latter returns the same error.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 19:58    Post subject:  

@jake29:-

Now I'm confused. I thought the problem was with libgtk-3.so.0, not libgdk-3.so.0..?


Mike. Confused

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
jake29

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 20:08    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
@jake29:-

Now I'm confused. I thought the problem was with libgtk-3.so.0, not libgdk-3.so.0..?

Apologies, it's late here - must be half-asleep. Embarassed

Code:
# file libgtk-3.so.0
libgtk-3.so.0: symbolic link to libgtk-3.so.0.1800.7
# file libgtk-3.so.0.1800.7
libgtk-3.so.0.1800.7: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped


Same info applies:
libgtk-3.so.0 exists in /usr/lib, but not /usr/lib64. Adding it to the latter returns the same error.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 101
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Tue 06 Jun 2017, 21:28    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
@ orrin, jake29:-
Hm. Odd. I've been 'beta' testing Chrome 59 till very recently, and it's been running perfectly in Slacko64 (though my version is the original 6.3.0). There could be a different layout for some things in 6.3.2; that's the UEFI version, isn't it?


What is UEFI ?

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
jake29

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Thu 08 Jun 2017, 09:42    Post subject: Solution  

@SFR has provided the solution over at: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=109067&start=450

Beginning with Chrome v59.x, GTK+3 is required.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 08 Jun 2017, 10:41    Post subject:  

Hi, Jake.

Ah, glad you've got it resolved. Y'see, I wasn't even aware of this, as both Tahr64 and Slacko64 have the 64-bit libgtk-3.so.0 installed by default.....so of course, the problem never showed up for me..!

I had a feeling this was a system issue, rather than an application one.

Thanks for getting back to me over this, and thanks also for making me aware of the GTK 3+ issue. Cheers.


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 101
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Thu 08 Jun 2017, 15:59    Post subject: Re: Solution  

jake29 wrote:
@SFR has provided the solution over at: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=109067&start=450

Beginning with Chrome v59.x, GTK+3 is required.


That's probably why the Gimp software that Mike suggested, also did not run on my system!

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 08 Jun 2017, 18:50    Post subject: Re: Solution  

orrin wrote:
jake29 wrote:
@SFR has provided the solution over at: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=109067&start=450

Beginning with Chrome v59.x, GTK+3 is required.


That's probably why the Gimp software that Mike suggested, also did not run on my system!


Mm. That's quite possible, actually. Linux is steadily moving over to GTK3. The old GTK2 has been a staple, core part of the 'X' graphics rendering system for some years, now; witness all the problems that were raised when FireFox 49 first showed up, with GTK3 suddenly incorporated by default.

Remember, the Puppy Forums were buzzing like a hornet's nest for a few weeks until 'workarounds' were proposed, coded, tested....and finally accepted as being 'the solution'. I ought to have anticipated this, if I'm honest..... Rolling Eyes

Never mind. At least we're now aware of it.....again! Thanks for the 'prompt', orrin. It could also be why the VLC AppImage refuses to 'play ball'...


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 07:27    Post subject:  

@orrin:-

orrin wrote:
What is UEFI?


Have a look here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

To put it in a nutshell, it's what's replaced the BIOS on more modern machines. Microsoft have further developed things to give the 'Fast Startup' (the machine doesn't shut-down, it hibernates instead) and also the 'Secure Boot' (which won't allow anything to boot unless it has a signed certificate from M$ themselves). Nice little earner for them, 'cos anybody who wants to develop an OS that'll run on modern hardware has no choice but to fork out $99 to MS for the privilege of doing so.....it simply won't boot otherwise.

Cheeky buggers. Supposedly it's in the interests of security; without the UEFI 'shim', as it's called, a modern computer will see any Linux OS as malware.....unless you go through all the hoops required to turn it off. On the very newest machines you can't even do this.


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
orrin


Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 101
Location: sparks, NV

PostPosted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 12:56    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:

Have a look here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface


Thanks Mike.... more information than I really needed.....(grin) Smile

_________________
Orrin - Engineer/Photographer/Webmaster

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 2831
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jun 2017, 18:56    Post subject:  

Ah, well.....there you go. I've often been accused of going OTT..!

You can't say you don't know now. Laughing


Mike. Wink

_________________
If I've helped you.....please say 'Thanks'!
MY PUPPY PACKAGES
--------------------------------------

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 10 of 11 [158 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1722s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0127s) ][ GZIP on ]