Issue 64 in omaha: Can't resolved detecting download URL of 64-bit builds by GET

14 views
Skip to first unread message

om...@googlecode.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2014, 2:34:33 AM6/25/14
to omah...@googlegroups.com
Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 64 by pureoce...@gmail.com: Can't resolved detecting download URL
of 64-bit builds by GET
http://code.google.com/p/omaha/issues/detail?id=64

Last year I discovered direct download URLs of Chrome builds. Of course
it's available "codebase" string inside of XML files.

STABLE version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{8A69D345-D564-463C-AFF1-A69D9E530F96}%26uc

BETA version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{8A69D345-D564-463C-AFF1-A69D9E530F96}%26uc&ap=1.1-beta

DEV version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{8A69D345-D564-463C-AFF1-A69D9E530F96}%26uc&ap=2.0-dev

CANARY version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{4ea16ac7-fd5a-47c3-875b-dbf4a2008c20}%26uc

Google released 64-bit version of Chrome Dev & Canary. I wanted can
detecing 64-bit URLs XML same URL/GET method. So, I changed suffix of URLs;

DEV version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{8A69D345-D564-463C-AFF1-A69D9E530F96}%26uc&ap=ap=x64-dev

CANARY version:
http://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx?x=id%3D{4ea16ac7-fd5a-47c3-875b-dbf4a2008c20}%26uc&ap=x64-canary

Unfortunately, only detect 32-bit links, not 64bit. I don't understand why.

is that not true strings for x64?
ap=x64-dev for DEV
ap=x64-canary for Canary

Which am I use &ap=.... in suffix?

Thank you in advance for your interest.

--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

om...@googlecode.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2014, 2:38:50 PM8/18/14
to omah...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Status: WontFix
Cc: lafo...@chromium.org waff...@chromium.org

Comment #1 on issue 64 by so...@google.com: Can't resolved detecting
download URL of 64-bit builds by GET
http://code.google.com/p/omaha/issues/detail?id=64

The query parameters and the actual resource referred by the "codebase"
element in the update response are implementation details and they are
likely to change at any time. In particular, I don't know the answer to
your question. At any rate, expect things to break if your system depends
on any of the artifacts above.

om...@googlecode.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 6:12:39 AM10/8/14
to omah...@googlegroups.com

Comment #2 on issue 64 by H.E.R.O....@gmail.com: Can't resolved detecting
download URL of 64-bit builds by GET
https://code.google.com/p/omaha/issues/detail?id=64

funny how your issue# matches your 'problem'.
what on earth made you think 1.1 or 2.0 is in any way related to a 32-bit
platform? especially if the stable version doesn't show such suffix at all
and--as you mentioned by yourself--the links are 'older' than the advent of
a dedicated 64-bit version.
so, as a brief conclusion: no, your estimation definitely won't lead you to
a 64-bit D/L-link but unfortunately I'm also not knowing which link you
should use instead.
as the updater isn't part of the chromium project it also isn't open
source, hence you can't just skim through the code in order to retrieve all
relevant urls. but you could try and install some 64-bit version and then
use wireshark in order to sniff the url it is referring to.
oh, and let us know if you have success (including the links you got, of
course...)
good luck!

ps: I kinda disagree with post #1 as I would expect these links lasting
pretty long.
pps: get yourself a new translation program; your current one suxxx.
ppps: I expect the 'ap=' appendix to be the very same for the 64-bit
version.
pppps: oh, utf-8 formating leads to an error 400 (bad request); ok, good to
know.

om...@googlecode.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 10:32:49 AM10/8/14
to omah...@googlegroups.com

Comment #3 on issue 64 by H.E.R.O....@gmail.com: Can't resolved detecting
download URL of 64-bit builds by GET
https://code.google.com/p/omaha/issues/detail?id=64

ups, I just found out, there obviously is no separate 64-bit binary. it is
all combined into one package and would behave accordingly not upon
installation fwik but upon run.

ps: sorry about the possibly rude language skill remark; I wouldn't dare to
say if English weren't only my 2nd language either.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages