There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser will be the default for the spin.
Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not allowed.
Here is a good excerpt:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Dan Mossor danofsatx@gmail.com wrote:
The correct avenue here, in light of the news from the upstream products, is to keep the status quo regardless of the lack of usability. When we finally get a fully-featured Qt based browser, that is when we switch. We DO NOT switch to a GTk based browser that has zero integration with the Plasma desktop - single click selection of files and directories within Firefox doesn't even work, let alone the theming and other issues. Ironically, those two items, as well as integration with kWallet, work fine with Google Chrome (which is not a choice in this discussion).
Tom Calloway has been working on Chromium - and his copr is up-to-date for anyone who wants to try it. https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/spot/chromium/
It's been a slow slog working through the issues keeping it from the official repository, but progress has been made: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28287
Things have also changed over the years, and Chrome/Chromium's popularity has continued to grow and is now packaged in Ubuntu, Debian and Suse. Firefox has exceptions mainly because it is deemed "to popular" to keep out of the distribution. I think it is obvious to everyone that Chrome/Chromium is "at least" as popular than Firefox.
I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.
On 8/12/15, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser will be the default for the spin.
Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not allowed.
Also because KDE has been ignored by web surfers for years. If they care, K-based browser would have been here already. For the past 13 years:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140751
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.
I agree with Gerald. If there are exceptions for firefox due to popularity then chromium deserves the same bundling exceptions. Otherwise we are not being fair.
I was kind of surprised this topic was mentioned today: The Chromium Web Browser Might Finally Be Added To Fedora http://goo.gl/0T9cUc
Nice to see people are interested.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:16:17PM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I was kind of surprised this topic was mentioned today: The Chromium Web Browser Might Finally Be Added To Fedora http://goo.gl/0T9cUc
Nice to see people are interested.
No, it's just the usual Phoronix crap show. Making shit up to sell ads since 2004. That whole miserable blurb is based on *this* email thread and nothing more.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:11:39PM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.
I agree with Gerald. If there are exceptions for firefox due to popularity then chromium deserves the same bundling exceptions. Otherwise we are not being fair.
It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions if they make sense): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Some_reasons_y...
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:11:39PM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or
Ubuntu...
and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.
I agree with Gerald. If there are exceptions for firefox due to
popularity
then chromium deserves the same bundling exceptions. Otherwise we are not being fair.
It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions if they make sense):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Some_reasons_y...
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
While it is true that Chromium does indeed bundle a lot more than Firefox does, I think they've also been putting in quite a bit of work into actually solving this problem[0]. To be absolutely fair to Chromium, they recognized the issue very quickly after they started making Linux releases. On top of the fact that Chromium development moves extremely quickly[1] and they appear to be quite responsive on security issues and work hard to design the application to be secure in itself[2]. If I remember correctly, it was Chromium's rapid development pace that triggered Firefox's own development practices to change[3].
I think that it's hard for us to continue to ignore Chromium, too. Despite everything, Chrome is preferred web browser by Fedorans second to Firefox, and not by a wide margin with Google+ users and a somewhat wide margin with Facebook users[4]. I imagine the lack of Chromium in Fedora is pretty much the reason for low usage and Firefox being default the reason for it remaining the top browser.
If there's a huge stopper of some kind, we should engage with the Chromium folks more directly on solving it. I don't know exactly what that would involve, but we should do something about it, I think.
[0]: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28287 [1]: https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel%E2%80%8B [2]: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security [3]: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2506843/desktop-apps/firefox-follows-ch... [4]: https://eischmann.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/most-popular-web-browsers-among-f...
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions if they make sense):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Some_reasons_y...
Matt, My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the forefront and generate some discussion. It was not to challenge the guidelines. The first discussions regarding this I found were in 2009, and quite a few things have changed since then. In 2009 one could not argue that Chromium was "To Big To Fail" - I'm not too sure about that now; especially in light of the recent Konqueror discussion which highlighted the fact that Fedora is highly dependent on Firefox. Firefox ends up being the default choice because it is the ONLY choice. That is becoming an untenable situation.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:54:10AM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the forefront and generate some discussion. It was not to
Yes, and thanks - I'm not objecting to that. I just didn't want to let by the idea that things get exceptions from the policies _solely_ as a function of popularity.
"GBC" == Gerald B Cox gbcox@bzb.us writes:
GBC> My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the GBC> forefront and generate some discussion.
I have noticed a bit of complaining that FPC is being unfair in keeping Chromium out of the distribution, or that we're not evenly applying the bundled library policy. I would like to make it clear that without an active package review and anyone actually submitting an exception request to FPC relating to that package review, FPC hasn't applied any policy at all. FPC has never even had the chance to consider the issue. I can't speak for how this would be received by FPC because I simply don't have enough information. The discussion in this thread hasn't really been about the actual bundling.
- J<
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
"GBC" == Gerald B Cox gbcox@bzb.us writes:
GBC> My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the GBC> forefront and generate some discussion.
I have noticed a bit of complaining that FPC is being unfair in keeping Chromium out of the distribution, or that we're not evenly applying the bundled library policy. I would like to make it clear that without an active package review and anyone actually submitting an exception request to FPC relating to that package review, FPC hasn't applied any policy at all. FPC has never even had the chance to consider the issue. I can't speak for how this would be received by FPC because I simply don't have enough information. The discussion in this thread hasn't really been about the actual bundling.
- J<
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Wait, what? No one has actually tried to submit Chromium to Fedora yet? I thought it had already happened once, hence the page on the wiki https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium.
On 12 August 2015 at 12:25, Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
> "GBC" == Gerald B Cox gbcox@bzb.us writes:
GBC> My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the GBC> forefront and generate some discussion.
I have noticed a bit of complaining that FPC is being unfair in keeping Chromium out of the distribution, or that we're not evenly applying the bundled library policy. I would like to make it clear that without an active package review and anyone actually submitting an exception request to FPC relating to that package review, FPC hasn't applied any policy at all. FPC has never even had the chance to consider the issue. I can't speak for how this would be received by FPC because I simply don't have enough information. The discussion in this thread hasn't really been about the actual bundling.
- J<
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Wait, what? No one has actually tried to submit Chromium to Fedora yet? I thought it had already happened once, hence the page on the wiki.
No, people have always gone with the "Someone really ought to package up Chromium" and then argued that X, Y or Z should do it for them..
On 12 August 2015 at 09:54, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions if they make sense):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Some_reasons_y...
Matt, My intent on this thread was simply to bring this topic to the forefront and generate some discussion. It was not to challenge the guidelines. The first discussions regarding this I found were in 2009, and quite a few things have changed since then. In 2009 one could not argue that Chromium was "To Big To Fail"
- I'm not too sure about that now; especially
in light of the recent Konqueror discussion which highlighted the fact that Fedora is highly dependent on Firefox. Firefox ends up being the default choice because it is the ONLY choice. That is becoming an untenable situation.
I think you and many others are asking the wrong questions or have and ignored the answers. Why are not other browsers available? is not the question but why are people not working on other browsers? Who are the people who are working on getting Chromium packaged? Who are the people inside of Fedora who are willing and able to work on the package to deal with various bugs? [And if your answer is Tom Calloway.. you have not asked him what his opinion on that is.. because the answer would not be "Tom Calloway"]
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
I think you and many others are asking the wrong questions or have and ignored the answers. Why are not other browsers available? is not the question but why are people not working on other browsers? Who are the people who are working on getting Chromium packaged? Who are the people inside of Fedora who are willing and able to work on the package to deal with various bugs?
No, that's not the point. The point is to gauge interest within the community. You can get Chromium from Russian Fedora and from Tom's copr. If there is sufficient interest I'm sure people will step forward to assist. I definitely would. The amount of effort to proceed through the FPC process is not trivial. If people aren't interested, then I personally wouldn't want to go through the effort.
On 12 August 2015 at 12:40, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
I think you and many others are asking the wrong questions or have and ignored the answers. Why are not other browsers available? is not the question but why are people not working on other browsers? Who are the people who are working on getting Chromium packaged? Who are the people inside of Fedora who are willing and able to work on the package to deal with various bugs?
No, that's not the point. The point is to gauge interest within the community. You can get Chromium from Russian Fedora and from Tom's copr. If there is sufficient interest I'm sure people will step forward to assist. I definitely would. The amount of effort to proceed through the FPC process is not trivial. If people aren't interested, then I personally wouldn't want to go through the effort.
And that is probably be why Chromium has never been added. It takes a person or people with the willpower to get through the process and realize they may fail doing it.. because long term packages require that kind of willpower to keep up with. We have a ton of packages that get orphaned every year because people get tired of working on bugs, on packaging issues, and other things. Getting something into Fedora on the level of Chromium is not going to be a walk in the park. Tom usually has to spend days getting the package back together whenever Chromium decides to change their buildsystem, add in a new bundled dep, change a bundled dep to their fork of it, etc etc. And if he has to go on a work conference or wants to spend time with his family.. all he gets is "Why haven't you updated Chromium today?" emails.
How important packages get added is that someone has done the work on getting the package into shape, worked on it for a while, and hopefully has gotten a team of people together who work together on keeping the ball rolling. It may not ever actually get included, but the work is being done whether or not it does. If people aren't willing to do that much before getting the 'package' ready.. then you can not actually gauge actual interest just "free pizza" interest.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
And that is probably be why Chromium has never been added.
Well, you got to start somewhere Stephen.
On 12 August 2015 at 13:09, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
And that is probably be why Chromium has never been added.
Well, you got to start somewhere Stephen.
What I am trying to say is that the place to start is to work on the package for a bit and then when you have gotten processes in place for all the items that happen with a fast moving software ball of fun.. then go and work on getting it into Fedora. Asking if people are interested in helping works when you have already done some of the work.
As much as I hate the word "meritocracy", this is clearly where Fedora is one. Do the work, show you know how to do the work, and basically show that you will keep doing it when everyone says you are wrong (*cough* systemd *cough* ) and then things get added. Spending time to ask if anyone is interested before that is done.. and people will ignore you or worse try to use your emails to make pithy statements to make the LWN quote of the week.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
What I am trying to say is that the place to start is to work on the package for a bit and then when you have gotten processes in place for all the items that happen with a fast moving software ball of fun.. then go and work on getting it into Fedora. Asking if people are interested in helping works when you have already done some of the work.
I understand what you're saying... I simply don't agree that you have to have a package ready in your back pocket before you bring it up on a discussion list.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Gerald B. Cox gbcox@bzb.us wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
What I am trying to say is that the place to start is to work on the package for a bit and then when you have gotten processes in place for all the items that happen with a fast moving software ball of fun.. then go and work on getting it into Fedora. Asking if people are interested in helping works when you have already done some of the work.
I understand what you're saying... I simply don't agree that you have to have a package ready in your back pocket before you bring it up on a discussion list.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Technically, we could assume that we have one available to work from, since both Russian Fedora Remix and spot have made packages with all the build spec information available for us to use for an official Chromium package. If we want to bring Chromium into Fedora, we should obviously start from those packages, as most of the hard work is basically done. So from that perspective, we do "have a package ready".
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to bring Chromium into Fedora, we should obviously start from those packages, as most of the hard work is basically done. So from that perspective, we do "have a package ready".
Yes, of course; and my reply was more in a generic sense than specifically to this topic. I'm not trying to boil the ocean here... one step at a time.
2015-08-12 9:14 GMT-06:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:11:39PM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or
Ubuntu...
and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium.
I agree with Gerald. If there are exceptions for firefox due to
popularity
then chromium deserves the same bundling exceptions. Otherwise we are not being fair.
It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions if they make sense):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Some_reasons_y...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Forks_of_packa...
Here say:
"firefox has a temporary bundling exception since it has an active security team tracking issues in their codebase. icecat has a temporary exception since it is a fork of firefox that closely tracks firefox's changes. We'll re-evaluate this before F22."
Maybe will be a good time to look at Chromium too
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Christopher Meng -
Gary Gatling -
Gerald B. Cox -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Lars Seipel -
Matthew Miller -
Neal Gompa -
Stephen John Smoogen -
William Moreno