| landley | Slack says "browser no longer supported" for the current version of chrome in beowulf. | 15:39 |
|---|---|---|
| gnarface | did you see if there's a newer one in beowulf-backports? | 15:39 |
| landley | I did an apt-get update && apt-get upgrade? | 15:40 |
| landley | backports is in sources.list? | 15:40 |
| landley | Is there more I need to do? | 15:40 |
| gnarface | you'd add it to sources.list if you haven't already | 15:40 |
| gnarface | but you know there's a newer release than beowulf, right? | 15:40 |
| landley | backports is in sources.list. | 15:40 |
| gnarface | try: apt-cache -t beowulf-backports search chrome | 15:41 |
| landley | I'm aware there are newer releases, but beowulf claims to still be maintained, it's newer than ascii which claims to still be maintained, and "backports" exists... | 15:41 |
| gnarface | does that search return anything? | 15:42 |
| landley | $ apt-cache -t beowulf-backports search chrome | wc | 15:42 |
| landley | 71 606 4548 | 15:42 |
| gnarface | apt-cache -t beowulf-backports search ^chrome | 15:42 |
| landley | chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell extensions integration for web browsers | 15:43 |
| landley | vboot-kernel-utils - Chrome OS verified boot utils required to sign kernels | 15:43 |
| landley | vboot-utils - Chrome OS verified u-boot utilities | 15:43 |
| landley | Those were the results. | 15:43 |
| gnarface | does your beowulf-backports line in your sources.list include " contrib non-free" | 15:45 |
| gnarface | ? | 15:45 |
| gnarface | it should end in "main contrib non-free" instead of just "main" | 15:45 |
| gnarface | hmm, actually i'm not seeing any version of chrome in there... anywhere! | 15:50 |
| gnarface | do you actually mean chromium? | 15:50 |
| gnarface | landley: ^ | 15:51 |
| landley | The browser. | 16:11 |
| landley | Yup, chromium-common is what's installed. | 16:11 |
| landley | It has "main non-free contrib" | 16:12 |
| gnarface | do you have beowulf-security in your sources.list too? | 16:14 |
| gnarface | landley: | 16:14 |
| landley | Yes. | 16:20 |
| gnarface | landley: dunno what to tell you then. seems like that's the newest you can safely install without building it yourself. | 16:24 |
| landley | When did devuan stop packaging chromium? Or do they only do it one for each new release? | 17:00 |
| landley | Do you suppose I could manually pull in the upstream debian apt for this? | 17:02 |
| landley | https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/chromium | 17:03 |
| ancient_jae | ceres has 112, as does sid, so I have no idea why you think anyone stopped packaging chromium. | 17:04 |
| landley | Hmmm, looks like a debian issue more than a devuan one. oldstable is the same version there in "versions"... | 17:04 |
| landley | backports hasn't got it. | 17:04 |
| ancient_jae | And yes, it is a "Debian issue". Debian (and Devuan) is *very* conservative about updating software in stable releases. "Avoid at almost all cost" kinda. | 17:05 |
| landley | Hence backports, yes. | 17:05 |
| landley | I'm asking on #debian. | 17:05 |
| landley | Thanks. | 17:05 |
| ancient_jae | backports aren't, IIRC, "official". Not in the way that "all newer version get backported". It's at "maintainer discretion", I'd say. And not all newer versions *can* get backported. | 17:06 |
| landley | It's ok, I can run another OS in a VM to do work. I'm used to it. | 17:14 |
| landley | It's not like running a web browser is an important thing for an OS to be able to do. | 17:16 |
| rwp | Regarding chromium: Beowulf is OldStable. Chimaera is the current Stable. OldStable is no longer getting new chromium bits. It's kind'a truth in advertising of the name. | 19:11 |
| rwp | If you need a newer version of chromium then the best answer is to upgrade to Chimaera. Then you will have the newer chromium available. | 19:11 |
| rwp | It's also possible to install the upstream Google Chrome. | 19:11 |
| rwp | As far as the concept of stable releases though Debian/Devuan don't do that for the web browsers. They decided that without any help from upstream that it was not possible to support a "stable web browser" release. So the web browsers are basically passed through directly. With web browsers it is a rolling release model. Effectively. | 19:13 |
| rwp | For running web browsers on older systems I personally recommend using Mozilla Firefox upstream which is self-updating which I think gives the best support on older systems. | 19:15 |
| systemdlete | so the other day I was here looking for a ventoy-like solution, given I am a bit leery about some posts on the web re ventoy indicating it might be a China state-sponsored project. I kept searching and found this: https://github.com/Mexit/MultiOS-USB/releases | 19:22 |
| systemdlete | I tested ventoy AND multios-usb. Both are very easy to use, and both work as advertised. | 19:22 |
| systemdlete | I thought I'd share this additional find with you in case you didn't find it in your own searches. multios-usb seems to be less prominent in search output than ventoy. Ventoy has a nice GUI, whereas multios-usb does not. However, the gui really isn't necessary. There is a very simple installer and updater. You can drag and drop ISOs | 19:25 |
| systemdlete | to the multios-usb device just as with a gui by using a file browser if you like. | 19:25 |
| systemdlete | Also, multios-usb project is not as active as ventoy, but only by a couple of months. I'd like to think that these tools do not need constant nursing, or at least they would be architected such that they would only require occasional updates for some corner cases. It could be that multios-usb is more stable and does not need fixes as often. | 19:27 |
| systemdlete | I haven't compared the bug lists. | 19:27 |
| systemdlete | anyway, I am OT for this channel, so I will make myself disappear. | 19:27 |
| systemdlete | *POOF* | 19:27 |
| rwp | ventoy at least I looked at briefly and the source is fully available. One could audit it for concerns about malicious influence. | 19:27 |
| systemdlete | same for multios-usb -- open source completely. | 19:28 |
| * systemdlete disappears | 19:28 | |
| systemdlete | *POOF* | 19:28 |
| rwp | Then "trust but verify" seems the appropriate action. But yes OT and should be in -offtopic. And those don't do anything one NEEDS because one can boot the iso directly without them. | 19:29 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!