On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:21:48PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On 1/10/22 05:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 11:23:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Btw, https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium/-/tree/stable is my branch
> > > with cleaned-up commits. That's what
On 1/10/22 05:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 11:23:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
Btw, https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium/-/tree/stable is my branch
with cleaned-up commits. That's what I'll use for the NMU, which I'm
preparing now.
If you all agree, you could
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 3:39 PM Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 01:49:53 -0500
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> > On 12/13/21 5:31 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > >> On 12/5/21 6:41 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 11:23:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Btw, https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium/-/tree/stable is my branch
> with cleaned-up commits. That's what I'll use for the NMU, which I'm
> preparing now.
If you all agree, you could finalize the tree, then I'll build
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 12:56:28AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> On 1/8/22 15:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official build,
> > > so
> > > those DCHECKs shouldn't
On 1/9/22 19:06, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/9/22 02:27, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/9/22 00:56, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/8/22 15:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official
On 1/9/22 02:27, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/9/22 00:56, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/8/22 15:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official
build, so
those DCHECKs shouldn't even be
On 1/9/22 00:56, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 1/8/22 15:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official
build, so
those DCHECKs shouldn't even be compiled in. It also supports wayland
On 1/8/22 15:57, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official build, so
those DCHECKs shouldn't even be compiled in. It also supports wayland
automatically, in case that's related to
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official build, so
> those DCHECKs shouldn't even be compiled in. It also supports wayland
> automatically, in case that's related to your slowdowns.
>
>
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 06:34:06AM -0300, Leandro Cunha wrote:
> > > I also haven't heard from anyone on the chromium team yet - should I
> > > add myself as an uploader and do a normal (non-NMU) upload? Do any of
> > > them care?
> >
> > Without hearing from them, adding yourself to Uploaders
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:55:20AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> If you want to try with chromium 97; it now builds as an official build, so
> those DCHECKs shouldn't even be compiled in. It also supports wayland
> automatically, in case that's related to your slowdowns.
>
>
Hi,
>
> > I also haven't heard from anyone on the chromium team yet - should I
> > add myself as an uploader and do a normal (non-NMU) upload? Do any of
> > them care?
>
> Without hearing from them, adding yourself to Uploaders would be
> inappropriate.
>
> --
> regards,
>
On 1/5/22 13:14, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 01:52:33PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
I suppose I'll see how it goes in the coming few days.
So it's not crashing but it's being unbearably slow in gmail, to the
point that I just wasn't able to type a mail there, while throwing
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 01:52:33PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I suppose I'll see how it goes in the coming few days.
So it's not crashing but it's being unbearably slow in gmail, to the
point that I just wasn't able to type a mail there, while throwing one
CPU core to 100%.
Also it was kind
On 1/5/22 13:14, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 01:52:33PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
I suppose I'll see how it goes in the coming few days.
So it's not crashing but it's being unbearably slow in gmail, to the
point that I just wasn't able to type a mail there, while throwing
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 06:46:46PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On 1/4/22 15:15, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:50:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > I pushed a commit to the skip-a11y-checks branch, please give that a try.
> > > I
> > > need to take a look at other
Version 97.0.4692.71 was released a few hours ago with an extensive
list of security holes that have been fixed.
In total, 37 as posted by Google with Chrome and Chromium Team.
Most medium and high severities.
On 1/4/22 15:15, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:50:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
Okay, that's funny - appears to be a fatal error due to being run under gdb.
Well, it was also crashing outside of gdb ^^
I pushed a commit to the skip-a11y-checks branch, please give
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:50:20PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Okay, that's funny - appears to be a fatal error due to being run under gdb.
Well, it was also crashing outside of gdb ^^
> I pushed a commit to the skip-a11y-checks branch, please give that a try. I
> need to take a look at other
On 1/4/22 11:46, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
[...]
[413:413:0104/174404.300230:FATAL:render_process_host_impl.cc(4227)] Check
failed: host->GetBrowserContext() == browser_context (0x645f47d0 vs.
0x658dcb30) Single-process mode does not support multiple browser contexts.
Okay,
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:47:15PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Thanks for testing! Are you doing this under sid?
yes!
> Hm, that's a new one.
>
> Looks like upstream turned those assert crashes into debug statements in
> newer releases. Please try to following patch:
>
>
Thanks for testing! Are you doing this under sid?
On 1/3/22 7:39 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:53:52PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
the v96 branch of https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium
FWIW, I'm trying to build it myself as well
Here it started chrashing as
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:39:21PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:53:52PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > > the v96 branch of https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium
> >
> > FWIW, I'm trying to build it myself as well
>
> Here it started chrashing as soon as I
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:53:52PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > the v96 branch of https://salsa.debian.org/dilinger/chromium
>
> FWIW, I'm trying to build it myself as well
Here it started chrashing as soon as I tried to open a new tab, and
after that it refuses to load my main profile
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 15:32:28 -0500
Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 20:15:01 +0100
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:23:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > How should I handle this? NMU to sid, let people try it out, and
> > > then deal with
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 20:15:01 +0100
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:23:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > How should I handle this? NMU to sid, let people try it out, and
> > then deal with buster/bullseye?
>
> Yeah, let's proceed with unstable first in any case.
>
>
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:23:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > I've got 96.0.4664.110 building on both bullseye and sid
Trying it, I see it still build-depends on python-jinja2. That package
is now gone, so it's not actually buildable in sid anymore.
Correlated, do you know how long do
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:23:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> How should I handle this? NMU to sid, let people try it out, and then
> deal with buster/bullseye?
Yeah, let's proceed with unstable first in any case.
> Upload everything all at once? I'm also
> going to try building for buster,
On 1/2/22 12:53 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 01:23:09PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
I've got 96.0.4664.110 building on both bullseye and sid
Trying it, I see it still build-depends on python-jinja2. That package
is now gone, so it's not actually buildable in sid
On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Correlated, do you know how long do they plan on keeping using python2?
> That's plainly unsuitable, it really is not going to last much longer in
> debian.
Current state of the Python 3 upstream migration can be found here:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 01:49:53 -0500
Andres Salomon wrote:
> On 12/13/21 5:31 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> On 12/5/21 6:41 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> >>> Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
On 12/13/21 5:31 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
On 12/5/21 6:41 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
Exactly that.
I'd suggest anyone who's interested in seeing Chromium
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:08:28 +0100 Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:13:42 +, Jeff Blake wrote:
> [...]
> > Inspector and convertutf are the worst offenders in terms of being
> > unnecessary and complex. The disable/catapult.patch could also be dropped,
> > since
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:13:42 +, Jeff Blake wrote:
[...]
> Inspector and convertutf are the worst offenders in terms of being
> unnecessary and complex. The disable/catapult.patch could also be dropped,
> since profiling might be desirable to some users.
convertutf at least is
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:43:10 +0100 Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> On 06.12.21 20:43, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
> d-release that it was removed from testing
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On 12/5/21 6:41 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> > Exactly that.
> >
> > I'd suggest anyone who's interested in seeing Chromium supported to first
> > update it in
On 12/5/21 6:41 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
Exactly that.
I'd suggest anyone who's interested in seeing Chromium supported to first
update it in unstable (and then work towards updated in bullseye-security).
I started doing just
On 06.12.21 20:43, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on d-release
that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a discussion
about ending security support for
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> The biggest difficulty, as far as I can tell from my look at Chromium from
> several months ago, is that our patch set [1] needs a lot of attention with
> every chromium release.
And let me ask another silly question: where can we actually see a CI log for a
failed
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> >> So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
>> >> d-release that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a
>> >> discussion about ending security support for
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 08:53:37PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I have good experience with some of my upstreams where they supported me by
> adapting their build system to enable building without the bundled/vendored
> dependencies. Has this been tried? Would it be worth pursuing?
It has been,
Hi,
On 06-12-2021 20:43, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
One lesson we may take from Mint, though, is that it's not worth trying
to patch Chromium as much as we'd like. Anything that we can do to
simplify the Chromium packaging will help us keep the package
up-to-date, which in turn will help us keep
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> >> So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
> >> d-release that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a
> >> discussion about ending security support for it in stable.
> >
> > The
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 6:57 AM Paul Gevers wrote:
>
> Hi Andres,
>
> On 05-12-2021 03:36, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
> > d-release that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a
> > discussion about ending
Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 05-12-2021 03:36, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on d-release
>> that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a discussion
>> about ending security support for it in stable.
>
> The problem really
> Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> > The problem really is lack of maintenance. In my opinion, chromium deserves
> > an active *team* to support it in Debian.
[..]
> > We'll not ship it in bookworm unless we see steady uploads
> > in unstable and we see security
Am Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:56AM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> Hi Andres,
>
> On 05-12-2021 03:36, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
> > d-release that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a
> > discussion about ending
Hi Andres,
On 05-12-2021 03:36, Andres Salomon wrote:
So what's happening with chromium in both sid and stable? I saw on
d-release that it was removed from testing (#998676 and #998732), with a
discussion about ending security support for it in stable. I'm willing
to help out with chromium
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:06:50 -0400 Andres Salomon wrote:
> Stable (bullseye) still contains chromium 90, which has had many
> security issues. Testing & unstable contain 93, and stable should really
> be quickly updated via stable-security to at least chromium 93 (as its
> already been packaged
Stable (bullseye) still contains chromium 90, which has had many
security issues. Testing & unstable contain 93, and stable should really
be quickly updated via stable-security to at least chromium 93 (as its
already been packaged and proven to build) or ideally 95 (the latest
stable chromium
51 matches
Mail list logo
