Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

[Josh Stone]

On 08/11/2015 12:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Josh Stone <jistone at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> Yet I see a Linux tar.bz2 for Firefox at downloads.mozilla.org so I
>>> wonder why that binary doesn't just run unmodified anywhere and I'm
>>> waiting for 40.0 to show up in Bodhi?
>>
>> If you don't see the value of distro integration and testing, then by
>> all means, go use mozilla's binaries.
> 
> I do not see the value in manually checking koji for Firefox updates
> and then manually downloading and installing them. That's just not
> going to happen by pretty much anybody. I have u-t enabled, I do
> testing, this update is not in u-t yet.

The value at that stage is trusting the package maintainers to judge
whether this is ready for broad use yet.  Perhaps in this case they're
aware of issues like what Bill mentioned.  It doesn't belong in
updates-testing until they think it's good to go.

> If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism
> and notification, yes I would do exactly that. And I'd still ask what
> the benefit is of duplicating this effort? It sounds like it's not
> actually a benefit, rather it's "because packaging".

I believe it does, but you can check Preferences > Advanced > Update.
The "Firefox updates" section is disabled in Fedora builds, but should
be there from Mozilla.

And "because packaging" has a lot to do with integration with system
libraries.  Mozilla's tarball includes a lot of bundled libraries,
beyond those that already have Fedora exceptions.