Updates to Google Chrome Linux support

20873 views
Skip to first unread message

Dirk Pranke

unread,
Nov 30, 2015, 6:19:37 PM11/30/15
to

Hi Everyone,


To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.


We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.


Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

Sorin Toma

unread,
Nov 30, 2015, 8:16:19 PM11/30/15
to Chromium-dev
Well then, farewell Chrome! If I can not use the same browser on all my platforms, I will not use it at all. Firefox might be slower, but it works on my old 32bit only laptop.

Mārtiņš Možeiko

unread,
Nov 30, 2015, 11:04:13 PM11/30/15
to Chromium-dev
Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?
If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

Ilja Friedel

unread,
Nov 30, 2015, 11:33:08 PM11/30/15
to martins...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Mārtiņš Možeiko <martins...@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?

The announcement below is carefully worded. No more official Linux 32 bit *Chrome* binaries will be released by Google, but there is the "intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building *Chromium*."
 
If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

I am pretty sure ChromeOS and Android will continue to build and release 32 bit ARM binaries based on Chromium sources for quite some time. Hence external 32 bit ARM *Chromium* builds should continue working with minor effort (the usual disclaimer).
 
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-8, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,


To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.


We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.


Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-dev...@chromium.org.

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Nov 30, 2015, 11:50:17 PM11/30/15
to Ilja Friedel, martins...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
Google has released 32bit ARM devices this quarter.  that means Chromium will be supported on 32bit ARM for at least 5 years.  in fact, every time a 32bit ARMv7 device is released, it's another 5 years of support.
-mike

Dirk Pranke

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 12:25:26 AM12/1/15
to i...@chromium.org, martins...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Ilja Friedel <i...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Mārtiņš Možeiko <martins...@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?

The announcement below is carefully worded. No more official Linux 32 bit *Chrome* binaries will be released by Google, but there is the "intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building *Chromium*."
 
If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

I am pretty sure ChromeOS and Android will continue to build and release 32 bit ARM binaries based on Chromium sources for quite some time. Hence external 32 bit ARM *Chromium* builds should continue working with minor effort (the usual disclaimer).

Everything Ilja wrote above is correct :). The same applies to 32-bit x86 builds as well.

-- Dirk 

Bryan Quigley

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 11:06:52 AM12/1/15
to Chromium-dev
Right now on my 64 bit machine the download page default to 32-bit.  Will that change sooner?

If you've installed 32 bit on a 64 bit capable OS will it transition automagically to a 64 bit Chrome at EOL?

Can you share the usage percentages behind the decision?

Thanks!
Bryan



On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 6:19:37 PM UTC-5, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Dirk Pranke

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 2:40:57 PM12/1/15
to gqu...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Bryan Quigley <gqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Right now on my 64 bit machine the download page default to 32-bit.  Will that change sooner?

By default are you referring to the radio button defaulting to a 32-bit .deb package (out of the 4 choices)?

If so, that'll certainly change when we stop offering the 32-bit download, but changing that to default to 
64-bit even before then is a good suggestion. I've filed crbug.com/564194 for this.
 
If you've installed 32 bit on a 64 bit capable OS will it transition automagically to a 64 bit Chrome at EOL?

That is not currently implemented. I've filed crbug.com/564198 for the suggestion, but it's not immediately
obvious that that's a good idea (there's a risk that we might break something locally in the upgrade, and
users might be surprised by the change more than they are by a normal version upgrade). 

We will notify users on startup that the browser is stale and they should switch, so hopefully that's good
enough.

Thanks,

-- Dirk


Thanks!
Bryan

[1] https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 6:19:37 PM UTC-5, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,


To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.


We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.


Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

--

Bryan Quigley

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 2:59:02 PM12/1/15
to Dirk Pranke, Chromium-dev
> By default are you referring to the radio button defaulting to a 32-bit .deb
> package (out of the 4 choices)?
Yup.

Thanks for filling bugs on both issues. I'm following them.

As for percentages I'm mostly curious about the ratio of 32 bit users
to 64 bit. I'm hoping the data could help give Linux distros another
data point on when they might be able to drop 32 bit.

Thanks again,
Bryan

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 3:01:47 PM12/1/15
to Dirk Pranke, gqu...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
i feel like, in most cases where people are running 32bit chrome, it's not possible to "upgrade" it to 64bit because they're running a 32bit userland, not a 64bit one.  you can't just drop the 64bit chrome into such an environment and expect it to run ... you'd need to include all the other 64bit packages.  i'm not sure how many distros even support 64bit multilib with the default being 32bit.
-mike

Jeff Dewe

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:19:28 PM12/1/15
to Chromium-dev
What is wrong with google??? It just doesn't make sense to close the official doors on 32bit pc's/laptops, Its not like they stopped making them years ago, hell they still make them, I will not change my pc and laptops to 64 bit just because google decides to drop support. Sad day for for Linux and google and who ever decided this should be Fired!!. Really its not like your compiling them every day of the week, for a new release. Its just the guy who compiles it, just being a lazy bastard. Distro's like puppy Linux is like 90% 32bit users. So basically your wiping the whole distro away.

Craig Millsap

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:27:02 PM12/1/15
to Chromium-dev
Can someone please clarify that this is an end to ALL 32-bit x86 Linux distributions?

The last sentence is confusing. I manage a lot of 32-bit Trusty netbooks.  Did you mean to say we recommend you upgrade to 64-bit Trusty?

Thanks,

Craig

Peter Kasting

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:30:38 PM12/1/15
to jeff...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Dewe <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is wrong with google??? It just doesn't make sense to close the official doors on 32bit pc's/laptops,

Chromium will still support these for a long time, we're simply not releasing Chrome builds; many distros didn't use Chrome builds anyway but built their own versions of Chromium, in which case this won't even have a visible effect.
 
I will not change my pc and laptops to 64 bit just because google decides to drop support.

OK.  We weren't asking you to.
 
Sad day for for Linux and google and who ever decided this should be Fired!!

Please keep criticism constructive.  This list is not for angry venting, it's a professional development list.  If you want to object, do so in a professional manner.
 
Really its not like your compiling them every day of the week, for a new release. Its just the guy who compiles it, just being a lazy bastard.

You should avoid asserting things about areas where you're not well informed.  There is no "guy who compiles it" to be "lazy", and we do in fact have a set of official builders that compiles these sorts of builds constantly.  Inventing a reason why you think this is happening and then criticizing it is simply attacking a strawman.
 
Distro's like puppy Linux is like 90% 32bit users. So basically your wiping the whole distro away.

As mentioned above and repeatedly in this thread, Chromium continues to support 32-bit builds and will for quite some time to come.

PK 

Ilja Friedel

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:31:54 PM12/1/15
to jeff...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
Please take a deep breath before calling people "bastards". It takes a lot of human effort to release tested binaries. This effort could be better spent on projects with more users. (Fyi the build infrastructure compiles and stores binaries hundreds of times a day.)

In your case you will be able to switch to
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Dewe <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev

Dirk Pranke

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:42:46 PM12/1/15
to cmil...@gentrypioneers.com, Chromium-dev
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Craig Millsap <cmil...@gentrypioneers.com> wrote:
Can someone please clarify that this is an end to ALL 32-bit x86 Linux distributions?

That is correct, we will no longer be distributing any official Google Chrome 32-bit 
x86 builds, regardless of distro or version of distro.

Separately, we are dropping support for Precise and wheezy for the 64-bit x86-64 builds as well.

It will be possible for distros to continue to build and publish their own versions of Chromium
for either 32-bit or 64-bit as long as they wish to do so.

The last sentence is confusing. I manage a lot of 32-bit Trusty netbooks.  Did you mean to say we recommend you upgrade to 64-bit Trusty?

You will either need to upgrade to 64-bit Trusty (if your hardware is capable of it) and 64-bit Google Chrome,
or use a 32-bit distro-provided version of Chromium.

I hope that clarifies things.

-- Dirk


Thanks,

Craig

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,


To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.


We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.


Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

--

Jeff Dewe

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 5:58:39 PM12/1/15
to Chromium-dev, jeff...@gmail.com
Listen I've compiled hundreds and hundreds of apps for people and its not that hard, but when you get apps with very large backends like chrome it only makes sense for Chrome to release 32bit, It takes so much resources for each distro times say 400 linux distro to compile there own 32bit. or Get one guy from chrome or 400 guys around the world. Really at the end of the day who wants to waste hrs and hrs compiling 1 app in a 1gb+ directory. I don't think anyone on puppy linux every compiled chrome, It just takes too long, takes too much space and a lot of added deps. Usually we just get the ubuntu releases, We tend to compile Firefox and seamonkey and a few QT based browsers, but Chrome has always been over blown. Would be nice if you came out with a smaller version?? Chrome is usually double or tripple the size of FF or Opera. Smaller based distros like having smaller browsers. Really a basic browser with flash block, ad-block and youTube downloader is what most people want and need. Oh yeah and being able to move the tabs under the URL bar is a common want. Anyways Chrome is your baby, how you raise it, will define your success or lack of it.

Jason Gray

unread,
Dec 1, 2015, 10:03:57 PM12/1/15
to Chromium-dev, jeff...@gmail.com
AFAIK you couldn't compile Chrome if you wanted to. It's got propriety "Chrome only" bits, that's what separates it from Chromium. You could always, and still can compile Chromium. As far as your "400" distros goes they will continue to do what they always have for Chromium, compile their own version in whatever architecture or use their parent distro's package. Distros AFAIK have never compiled their own versions of Chrome. All this means is that Google will stop releasing 32bit versions of Chrome for Linux. It changes very little to nothing for Chromium. 

SYSTEMA CORE

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 5:35:16 AM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev

 Thanks Google, I've just acquired a bunch of cheap (even refurbished and 2nd hand) x86 Chromebooks with the explicit purpose of making them lubuntu+chrome machines... These are 2 gigs systems with low end CPU's like celeron's, they will never handle a 64 bit distro+64 bit chrome well and they were functioning just fine with 32 bit lubuntu+32 bit chrome, in fact MUCH BETTER than 32 bit firefox.

 Canonical never keeps the chromium in the repos updated not to mention the fact the overall CHROME it's a much better experience.

 Being a company with so much money this is a nasty move to pull and you are clearly doing this because you are seeing a lot of chromebooks being repurposed as linux distro machines...  I had a project with 50+ machines for a charity for the IT illiterate, disavantaged, unemployed people, anyone who needed a laptop really... you should see their faces when they hold a cheap chromebook like it's the most precious thing they have ever seen.

 So the next time you think  "why are we bothering with XXXX ? who uses this? linux geeks right? fuck them " you should clearly consider all the ramifications of your decision to save a few dollars.

 reckless at best, malicious if you ask me.

 thanks for nothing

SYSTEMA CORE

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 7:01:41 AM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev
... and one more thing, just to really convey the disapointment and perplexity I'm feeling now: CHROME's performance has been stellar in Linux, it is by far the best browser one can use in linux (32 or 64). This is, of course, hardly due to the kindness of Google but simply because they are optimizing chrome to work well under their own gentoo based Chrome OS system.

 And this is what is really obscene: Google made millions (billions?) on the back of the linux kernel (Chrome OS, Android, all the services etc) and this is how they give back? No one is no longer asking for native drive clients or anything of the sort but now they want to take away from linux their most core software (a browser)

 
  SHAME

Igor Kovalchuk

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 9:19:23 AM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev
How about the Pepper Flash Player? Will it be available on 32-bit Linux systems?

Igor K.

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 9:26:14 AM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev
Will be there security updates for 32-bit Linux Pepper Flash Player somehow?

Michael Pardee

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 11:00:22 AM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev
I support public libraries with hundreds of 32-bit computers - now they only have 3 months to buy new hardware?    Chrome provides the only decent Flash implementation for Linux these days, so chromium won't help.  I know flash stinks, but a lot of web sites still require it.   I can understand a change like this but organizations need more than 3 months to adapt to major changes - does Google publish a roadmap of hardware/software support?  If not, I guess organizations cannot rely on Google for any critical function.

Ralph Bromley

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 3:20:12 PM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev


On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:00:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Pardee wrote:
I support public libraries with hundreds of 32-bit computers - now they only have 3 months to buy new hardware?    Chrome provides the only decent Flash implementation for Linux these days, so chromium won't help.  I know flash stinks, but a lot of web sites still require it.   I can understand a change like this but organizations need more than 3 months to adapt to major changes - does Google publish a roadmap of hardware/software support?  If not, I guess organizations cannot rely on Google for any critical function.

Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

As for this decision,I still think its a dumb one as there are a lot of people who use linux on old hardware but at the same time there is still chromium.
The only sucky thing about chromium is there is no drm html5 so no netflix

Ralph Bromley

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 3:23:23 PM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev


On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:26:14 AM UTC-5, Igor K. wrote:
Will be there security updates for 32-bit Linux Pepper Flash Player somehow?

Actually pepperflash itself is 32bit only due to adobe ditching the 64bit version of flash 

Ralph Bromley

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 6:04:55 PM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev, jeff...@gmail.com
Still I think anger is justfied, if I were still using 32bit hardware I would use so much foul language it would look like George Carlin was on Tomas the Tank Engine his entire career 

Anthony LaForge

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 6:57:36 PM12/2/15
to dancin...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, jeff...@gmail.com
It's worth noting that Ubuntu provides an official Flash Player plugin package for Chromium called adobe-flashplugin.  You can find instructions, on how to install it, here.

Big kudos to both Adobe and Canonical for making that available!

Kind Regards,

Anthony Laforge
Technical Program Manager
Mountain View, CA

--

Michael Pardee

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 7:33:18 PM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev
Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

I am having trouble finding out exactly what differences there are between the flash version built into chrome and the chromium pepper flash plugin available for Ubuntu.  If Google is dropping 32-bit chrome support, how long until they drop 32-bit flash plugin support?  Where is the roadmap?  If the flash plugin functionality is similar to the current plugin for firefox that is only getting security updates, its not really viable.  Many ( poorly programmed ) sites won't work with the firefox flash plugin anymore.


 

Anthony LaForge

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 8:01:08 PM12/2/15
to opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
Adobe provides the same builds to both Google and Canonical, so they should be identical.

I'm not sure what their deployment timing/ hand-off policies might be, nor what Adobe's plans are for 32-bit support of Linux... but I can say with confidence that they should mirror what we are deploying with Chrome.

Kind Regards,

Anthony Laforge
Technical Program Manager
Mountain View, CA

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Michael Pardee <opensense...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

I am having trouble finding out exactly what differences there are between the flash version built into chrome and the chromium pepper flash plugin available for Ubuntu.  If Google is dropping 32-bit chrome support, how long until they drop 32-bit flash plugin support?  Where is the roadmap?  If the flash plugin functionality is similar to the current plugin for firefox that is only getting security updates, its not really viable.  Many ( poorly programmed ) sites won't work with the firefox flash plugin anymore.


 

--

Michael Pardee

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 9:43:07 PM12/2/15
to Chromium-dev, opensense...@gmail.com, laf...@google.com

Adobe provides the same builds to both Google and Canonical, so they should be identical.

At first glance it does appear that the flash built into chrome is the same as libpepflashplayer.so for chromium, which makes chromium + pepper flash a viable alternative to chrome. ( except for netflix and a few other things )

 However:

I'm not sure what their deployment timing/ hand-off policies might be, nor what Adobe's plans are for 32-bit support of Linux... but I can say with confidence that they should mirror what we are deploying with Chrome.

That is exactly what I am worried about - if flash support mirrors chrome's abandonment of 32-bit.  Right now chromium gets the flash plugin for "free" since it was already developed for Chrome, but once the 32 bit version is no longer made for Chrome I doubt they'll still make it just for use with Chromium.  Will there be any advance warning or will it just be discontinued in 3 months?    I had assumed google was developing the flash plugin themselves, or at least paying Adobe to do it (otherwise why wouldn't Firefox get an updated version too?)   - if this is completely up to Adobe I'm not very optimistic.

How can we get an official answer about the future of the 32-bit flash plugin for chromium?

On another note, if anyone from Google cares anything about public relations, they should be explaining this move more.  There are probably some better reasons than "To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions" - like specific library dependencies.  If it was a simple matter of development time/money I wonder if we could crowdfund another year of 32-bit development to buy some time for new hardware purchases.  Linux users are pretty technical people and some vague marketing statement is just going to make them angry.



Mike Frysinger

unread,
Dec 2, 2015, 10:18:51 PM12/2/15
to opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, Anthony LaForge
as mentioned earlier in the thread, Chrome OS x86 32-bit support is sticking around until at least July 2016.
-mike

PhistucK

unread,
Dec 3, 2015, 2:20:54 AM12/3/15
to Mike Frysinger, opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, Anthony LaForge
Actually, unless I am blind or GMail missed some posts on the thread, this is not mentioned anywhere in the thread (at least when I search for "July" or "2016").


PhistucK

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Dec 3, 2015, 2:56:46 AM12/3/15
to PhistucK, opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev, Anthony LaForge
CrOS devices have at least 5 years of life, so when you look up the last 32bit x86 device and see it was released in July 2011, the logical computation gets you July 2016.
-mike

Michael Pardee

unread,
Dec 3, 2015, 9:19:39 AM12/3/15
to Chromium-dev, phis...@gmail.com, opensense...@gmail.com, laf...@google.com
I found this that talks about the 5 year policy: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/eol.html
But I don't see any specifics about what is guaranteed for 5 years - possibly it is just the operating system.  I could see them excluding third party software/plugins like flash.  

Mike Frysinger

unread,
Dec 3, 2015, 11:25:05 AM12/3/15
to Michael Pardee, Chromium-dev, PhistucK Productions, Anthony LaForge
that's extremely unlikely
-mike

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Michael Pardee <opensense...@gmail.com> wrote:
I found this that talks about the 5 year policy: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/eol.html
But I don't see any specifics about what is guaranteed for 5 years - possibly it is just the operating system.  I could see them excluding third party software/plugins like flash.  

--

Михаил Гаврилов

unread,
Dec 3, 2015, 11:25:34 AM12/3/15
to Chromium-dev


To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux



Too bad :( 

32-bit version of Google Chrome for Linux is not less popular than the 32-bit version of Google Chrome for windows. especially on machines with 512Mb - 2Gb RAM. 

Bob Good

unread,
Dec 14, 2015, 11:07:14 AM12/14/15
to Chromium-dev
That's all well and good, Dirk, but Chromium doesn't include 32bit  pepperflash. No 32bit Chrome means no 32bit pepperflash. No more "borrowing" pepperflash to run in Chromium 32bit (like I've done in the past). This is a sad day for my older 32bit laptops which are still quite functional.

Can the devs still provide a 32bit pepperflash for those migrating from Chrome to Chromium?

Sign me as disappointed.
Bob 

Sol Dowdal

unread,
Jan 30, 2016, 10:58:31 PM1/30/16
to Chromium-dev
I highly doubt 64-bit linux is the most used, yes it may be the future, but why would they think that segregating a good portion of of a already small portion of users could at all benefit anyone? That entire group of users isnt going to rush out to buy new laptops, Almost every person in that group will switch to firefox, because thats usually peoples backup browser, just like chrome is typically firefox users backup

Devin Lane

unread,
Feb 1, 2016, 9:09:59 PM2/1/16
to Chromium-dev
Dirk:

I use Ubuntu 12.04 LTS in 64bit mode, and am currently waiting until 16.04 LTS is released to update. Would it be at all possible to continue Chrome updates for 12.04 (64bit) until 16.04 is out? I realize that 14.04 LTS was released almost 2 years ago, but the LTS schedule is for 5 years. I imagine there are other Chrome users in my scenario that have chosen LTS releases due to this long support timeline.

Thanks!

Lei Zhang

unread,
Feb 1, 2016, 9:26:10 PM2/1/16
to devin...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
At least with Ubuntu 10.04, IIRC it was not possible to directly
upgrade to 14.04. One has to upgrade to 12.04 first. Assuming directly
upgrading from 12.04 to 16.04 is similarly not possible, then my
recommendation is to just upgrade to 14.04 now.

Devin Lane

unread,
Feb 1, 2016, 10:12:38 PM2/1/16
to Chromium-dev, devin...@gmail.com
Lei:

This is a reasonable suggestion for an individual computer, but this is a work environment where I have ~40 machines running 12.04 that work with a build system including custom libraries compiled for 12.04. Since C++ lacks a stable ABI, the libraries are particular to a GCC version. So to do this upgrade path I would have to compile a bunch of stuff for 14.04, then a month later redo it all for 16.04. None of this is important to Chrome of course, but given that March is so close to April's 16.04 release, I'm wondering if a month.5 extension wouldn't be out of the question.

Thanks,

Lei Zhang

unread,
Feb 1, 2016, 10:27:17 PM2/1/16
to Devin Lane, Chromium-dev
AFAIK, there's no plans to extend Chrome Linux support for the
platforms marked for deprecations in the announcement from 3 months
ago.

The conversation about your organization's specific situation is
probably not appropriate for the chromium-dev mailing list. You are
welcome to email me privately if you want my opinion on how to
proceed.

Dirk Pranke

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 6:42:08 PM2/2/16
to Lei Zhang, Devin Lane, Chromium-dev
Correct, we have no plans to extend the support window at this time. Sorry!

Waiting until 16.04 is out seems a bit dodgy anyway since there's no telling
how long it'll be before that release is stable (i.e., is April really good enough,
or do we need to wait until May/June/etc.)?

-- Dirk

Matt Giuca

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 7:01:53 PM2/2/16
to dpr...@chromium.org, Lei Zhang, Devin Lane, Chromium-dev
I think given Ubuntu is one of the major Linux distributions, it would make sense to wait for 16.04 if there were problems with 64-bit Chrome on 14.04 (the last LTS release). But I don't see any reason we should wait because some people haven't upgraded from 12.04 yet. (If the argument is that 12.04 has a 5-year support life from Canonical, then the release of 16.04 doesn't change anything; under that argument we should still support it through to 2017.) Chromium/Chrome is not beholden to Canonical's support lifecycle. I think it is reasonable for us to stop supporting 12.04 by now.

Michael Pardee

unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 8:42:38 PM2/11/16
to Chromium-dev
I just noticed that now google docs says chromium 32-bit is an unsupported browser.  Is this really the case or is the check temporarily incorrect?  The exact message that appears at the top of the screen when you compose a new document is:
"This version of Google Chrome is no longer supported.  Please upgrade to a supported browser. Dismiss"

Hitting Dismiss only remove the message temporarily - it comes right back when you compose a new document.

There have been comments made about Chromium being supported on 32-bit ARM for 5 years, but if google docs and other google services don't work it won't mean much.


Lei Zhang

unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 8:55:18 PM2/11/16
to opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
You need to ask Google Docs / Drive about their browser support.
Chromium developers cannot help you with this issue.

One important detail you left out is the version of Chromium you are
running. If you are using Chromium 11 from many many moons ago, for
example, then I would not be surprised if Google Docs says it is not
supported.

Michael Pardee

unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 9:18:46 PM2/11/16
to Chromium-dev, opensense...@gmail.com
Yes, embarrassingly I spoke too soon - I was looking at the current version of chromium packaged in Ubuntu 12.04 32bit which is version 37 with security updates.  I'm hoping the message goes away in version 48 32bit. 

Torne (Richard Coles)

unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 3:36:16 AM2/12/16
to opensense...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev

There isn't any "version 37 with security updates"; if you are running 37 you are using a version with over a year's worth of known security bugs. Upgrade to something current.

jan deruiter

unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 1:12:40 PM2/12/16
to Chromium-dev
what a greedy awful decision by Google. We refurbish old computers to put into depleted and completely broke public schools in philadelphia. Most students don't have anything at home in terms of technology. The District did set up Google EDU for every student but now they will not be able to use Chrome much longer on the older machines we are putting into classroom, libraries, PTA rooms, etc. With all the money Google has (and which it blows on nonsense every day), this argument of it being a burden to maintain Chrome distributions for older platforms is BS. We will have to look for alternatives now (anything but Google). To your credit, Google has provided us with a perfect example to illustrate two-faced corporate greed to the 135,000 students in our district.

PhistucK

unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 1:26:42 PM2/12/16
to most...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
If your distribution maintains Chromium, you can still use that...


PhistucK

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:12 PM, jan deruiter <most...@gmail.com> wrote:
what a greedy awful decision by Google. We refurbish old computers to put into depleted and completely broke public schools in philadelphia. Most students don't have anything at home in terms of technology. The District did set up Google EDU for every student but now they will not be able to use Chrome much longer on the older machines we are putting into classroom, libraries, PTA rooms, etc. With all the money Google has (and which it blows on nonsense every day), this argument of it being a burden to maintain Chrome distributions for older platforms is BS. We will have to look for alternatives now (anything but Google). To your credit, Google has provided us with a perfect example to illustrate two-faced corporate greed to the 135,000 students in our district.

--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev

Thiago Farina

unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 2:26:00 PM2/12/16
to phis...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev


On Friday, February 12, 2016, PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com> wrote:
If your distribution maintains Chromium, you can still use that...

Are you sure they are using a Linux distribution there? As he says it is very likely, but there is nothing there that we could take that conclusion. They may be using Windows XP. Who knows?



--
Thiago Farina

PhistucK

unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 2:33:35 PM2/12/16
to Thiago Farina, Chromium-dev
Mm... because this thread is about Linux, I assumed it was on topic. :)


PhistucK

Brian Anon The Root

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 3:21:01 AM3/3/16
to Chromium-dev
Could the PPA/repository be fixed? I keep getting the following error when updating the packages, this is on the 64-bit release. It's affecting everybody.

Enter code here...W: Failed to fetch http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/dists/stable/Release  Unable to find expected entry 'main/binary-i386/Packages' in Release file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file)

E
: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.

PhistucK

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 3:25:57 AM3/3/16
to rootbr...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
You can search crbug.com for an existing issue and star it. If you cannot find one, file a new issue using the "New issue" link on the same page.
Please, do not add a "+1" or "Me too" or "Confirmed" (or similar) comment. It just wastes the time of Chrome engineers and sends unnecessary e-mails to all of the people who starred the issue.

You can reply with a link to the found or created issue and might get triaged (and fixed) faster.

Thank you.



PhistucK

--

Manuel Barallobre Seoane

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 3:27:29 AM3/3/16
to Chromium-dev
You only have to edit your source.list find the line

deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

and change for another this

deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

Jonathan Garbee

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 2:25:35 PM3/3/16
to Chromium-dev
The repository is certainly messed up to some degree here. Even using Ubuntu 14.04, which is still supported, the x86 error occurs. This completely prevents system updating until people figure out how to permanently fix the issue.

Just editing the /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome-{stable,unstable}.list file is no good. It only works once, then it is overwritten again by the system.

--

Mark Greaves

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 3:37:16 PM3/3/16
to Chromium-dev
Google need to fix this in their .deb package.

They need to change the line:-
to:


deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list

and the two lines:-

REPOCONFIG="deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main"
SSLREPOCONFIG="deb https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main"

to

REPOCONFIG="deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main"
SSLREPOCONFIG="deb [arch=amd64] https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main"

in /opt/google/chrome/cron/google-chrome .. otherwise cron will keep overwriting the changes daily

Michael Moss

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 3:51:38 PM3/3/16
to pcne...@gmail.com, Chromium-dev
This is crbug.com/591480, and there is a pending fix out for it. Also, I don't believe this "completely prevents system updating", does it? The error suggests that apt-get is proceeding, but with old data (for the 32-bit packages). The only thing that should be broken by it is that your system might think there are still i386 packages in the repo when there aren't (not that anybody on amd64 systems probably cared about those anyhow). Are you seeing actual problems installing or updating the 64-bit packages?

Michael


--

Mark Greaves

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 4:00:27 PM3/3/16
to Chromium-dev, pcne...@gmail.com
No it's not 'breaking update functionality, just confusing the heck out of a lot of people who think updates are broken .. I'm unsure if it blocks google-chrome-stable updates, but the error message suggests it might not be updating that repo contents to the package cache.

Brian Anon/The Root

unread,
Mar 3, 2016, 4:50:48 PM3/3/16