Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

@Ozsouth thank you for your reply and info. As a side note works in Xenial64.

Chrome/Chromium for Linux does NOT have an "Upgrade" feature that we can use in Puppyland. There are numerous utilities for installing Chrome by several members, but there is NO "upgrade" utility.

I am aware of use of PPM but some of us know that sometimes, depending on the distro, this doesn't always yield the system needs to allow a new Chrome install to proceed.

Questions

• Is there a utility somewhere that is PuP friendly for a "re-install" to a new version?

• Is there a utility somewhere that is PuP friendly for removal in preparation for a new install?

Additionally, are there some obstacles to moving from old to new Chrome/Chromium that a utility does not overcome?

Curious in this observation. Thanks in advance of any helpful responses to this post.

Very satisfied with this portable version. I adopted it under Tahr64. It's a change of Seamonkey and Palemoon ... slow and inefficient

BologneChe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:48 am

Very satisfied with this portable version. I adopted it under Tahr64. It's a change of Seamonkey and Palemoon ... slow and inefficient

You're very welcome, mate. Hope it's working okay for you.......enjoy!

Mike.

Right, kiddiwinks. This is something of an 'experiment', it's true, but one which I want to share with y'all.

Following some tiffling around - with the help of modified versions of Fred's scripts, here:-

viewtopic.php?p=28697#p28697

.....I have pleasure in offering an AppImage of Chrome, based on the current release, and running-as-root via use of the "--test-type" 'switch'.

As with all AppImages, after downloading it, you will need to make it executable; rt-clk->Properties->tick the 3 checkboxes down the bottom->Refresh->Close. Then, simply click on it to fire it up. It will create its profile - a directory called "google-chrome", at the same level, beside it. You may think it's not going to do anything initially - it DOES take a wee while to get underway! - but that's because it's unpacking itself into /tmp prior to starting.

If anybody would like to give this a try, you can find it at the usual link in post #1.....one directory further in, under AppImage. Feedback would be appreciated.

Mike.

Hi Mike,

Tested in Xenial 7.5 64bit - worked fine video and Browsing no problems - sound ok, Video ok. Exporting Bookmarks normal.
Tahr 6.05 64bit - Same above except Exporting bookmarks doen't (same behaviour as the standard portable - not a problem as this is a known issue.)

Thanks Mike for this

Clarity wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:51 am

Chrome/Chromium for Linux does NOT have an "Upgrade" feature that we can use in Puppyland. There are numerous utilities for installing Chrome by several members, but there is NO "upgrade" utility.

I am aware of use of PPM but some of us know that sometimes, depending on the distro, this doesn't always yield the system needs to allow a new Chrome install to proceed.

Questions

• Is there a utility somewhere that is PuP friendly for a "re-install" to a new version?

• Is there a utility somewhere that is PuP friendly for removal in preparation for a new install?

Additionally, are there some obstacles to moving from old to new Chrome/Chromium that a utility does not overcome?

Curious in this observation. Thanks in advance of any helpful responses to this post.

hi @Clarity

here's a script for updating google chrome viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3025&p=26367&hilit= ... ome#p26367

@mikewalsh
I wonder if the included "lib" dir is required (in some cases perhaps?)
When running your Chrome-Portable64 appimage I get error (on my Debian Buster based system):

# '/root/Downloads/AppImage/Chrome-Portable64'
/tmp/.mount_ChromeqVhUL3/chrome: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0: undefined symbol: pango_font_description_get_variations

When I rebuild the appimage without the LD_LIBRARY_PATH set (so included "lib" not used) then it runs OK.

Fred

@fredx181 :-

Um; yeah, ok.....point taken.

Bearing in mind this was just an experiment, if I was going to produce these things regularly, there would HAVE to be two versions......corresponding to the dual 'LAUNCH' scripts I supply with most of the portable 'clones'. One of which runs the browser WITH the contents of the 'lib' directory, and the other which runs the browser WITHOUT the lib directory, due to newer versions being present by default.

This was really just a 'proof-of-concept', when it boils down to it. I'm still fully committed to my normal, portable builds. TBH, I'm in two minds about actually producing my own AppImages on a regular basis!

But your observation DOES hold water. I was waiting for someone to mention it....

It's great that the means does exist for us to create 'em if we want to. Kudos for that, buddy.

Mike.

Here's Appimage for Google-chrome version 91.0.4472.114 (source is Mike's portable):

64-bit:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=down ... VIw481EydI
EDIT: Re-uploaded, link above replaced, fixed that it didn't show in the Puppy menu, should now appear in category "Internet".

Make it executable before running. Will create "google-chrome" profile dir at the same level as the appimage.

Created as described here (by modifying the variables in the cr-appimage2 script and replace icon with Chrome icon):
viewtopic.php?p=29851#p29851 (and see also here: viewtopic.php?p=28697#p28697)
(should add a menu entry, .desktop launcher created in ~/.local/share/applications)

Fred

Cheers, Fred.

Anything to make life easier for Puppians. Much appreciated...

Mike.

Re-uploaded appimage see for download link and EDIT here: viewtopic.php?p=29855#p29855

EDIT: Mmm.. just read at the beginning of this thread: Post by wiak about that using the option --test-type may have it's disadvantages, didn't know that, so... warning... it's included in the command-line for running the appimage.

Afternoon, gang.

New release of Chrome rolled out the door yesterday, so here's the new 'portable' package of v91.0.4472.164.

All the usual info about bugfixes, patches, etc.....here:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2 ... sktop.html

Nothing major to report, so.....enjoy!

Mike.

Afternoon, gang.

Now then; Chrome 92 is here, so without further ado here's the portable version of v92.0.4515.107.

Lotta security fixes & CVEs on this one. All the workarounds, 'fixes', & patches are detailed at the usual location, here:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2 ... op_20.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

One small detail I need to report with this release. The portable no longer seems to run with either Tahrpup64 OR Xenialpup64, or other 64-bit Puppies from that generation. My own Quirky April 64 is refusing to run it, reporting symbol look-up errors with GTK 3.0.....and that's the same kind of era.

I'll be looking into this, but from previous experience of trying to "upgrade" GTK 3.0 in-situ, it's not going to be as simple as it first appears. It never is..!

----------------------------------------------------------------

The new version is available, as always, from the link in post #1.

Enjoy!

Mike.

Evening, gang.

I've re-uploaded the current release, primarily to add the ability to create a Menu entry for the portable, should one be required. Full instructions for adding/removing/managing the Menu entry can be found in the 'MenuReadMe' file.

You'll find the link in the first post, as always.

Mike.

Hi Mike,
fossa64 9.5 frugal
unpacked gcportable92 on my hd in /mnt/home and works fine.

When I try to unpack it on my bootable usb drive, it unpacks with 42 errors. All the symlinks in Google_Chrome-portable/chrome/lib/ are missing.

wizard

wizard wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:48 pm

Hi Mike,
fossa64 9.5 frugal
unpacked gcportable92 on my hd in /mnt/home and works fine.

When I try to unpack it on my bootable usb drive, it unpacks with 42 errors. All the symlinks in Google_Chrome-portable/chrome/lib/ are missing.

wizard

Could well be that your usb drive is FAT formatted, if so, FAT doesn't support symlinks, resulting in errors.

@fredx181

That was exactly the problem, thanks I learned something new.

wizard

wizard wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:53 pm

@fredx181

That was exactly the problem, thanks I learned something new.

wizard

Believe it or not, despite using Pup for nearly 8 years, I, too, only learnt that about FAT32 shortly before the start of the pandemic, so.......not quite 2 years ago.

So you're in good company.....and, again, it was Fred who told ME..!

Mike.

Hi mike,
should your first post have a caution note about what file systems are supported?

wizard

wizard wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:25 pm

Hi mike,
should your first post have a caution note about what file systems are supported?

wizard

Possibly, mate. More to the point, I think there needs to be a "sticky" somewhere in the User's and Noob's forums clearly pointing out this known limitation with FAT32. Because it's not just Google Chrome, or even the way I do my portables in general; this known limitation applies to any & everything running on or from a FAT32-formatted flash drive/partition.

FAT32 does NOT support sym-links. Stat.

Mind you, I could get round that problem to a large extent by re-naming every one of those libs to its "so.x" counterpart; this has already been proved to work elsewhere..... I may look into that. Leave it with me.

Mike.

Hi mike,

Mind you, I could get round that problem to a large extent by re-naming every one of those libs to its "so.x" counterpart; this has already been proved to work elsewhere..... I may look into that

Tried this and it seems to work fine on my fat32 fossa64 bootable usb. Looking at the files, there is more than one symlink for many of the libs and I didn't know if any of them could be eliminated so those libs get duplicated. This adds about 15mb to the package.

Here is a bash script that did the renaming. Copy it into the chrome/lib directory and be sure its executable, open a terminal in the lib directory and run: ./rename_links.sh
You will get lots of errors in the terminal, but that's a result of my sloppy programing. If you try it and find problems, let me know.

wizard

Okey-doke, gang.

New Chrome release for y'all to play with, so here's Google_Chrome-portable v92.0.4515.130. Fixes.workarounds/patches, etc, can be found here:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2 ... me-os.html

----------------------------------------

After wizard's 'episode' with FAT32 - see above - the /chrome/lib directory has been streamlined, and all sym-links have now been removed. This was achieved by the simple expedient of deleting every sym-link, and renaming the actual libs to their 'so.x' equivalent (the bit that apps always look for).

Never have understood this. Libs always compile out to including the full version number in the finished product.....but apps always look for an abbreviated version of this, hence the need for a sym-link in the first place. Which all seems rather pointless to me..!

################

PLEASE BE AWARE:- From the 92-series onward, Chrome no longer runs OOTB with Tahrpup64 or Xenialpup64. A newer version of GTK-3.0 is now required, and this is going to mean so many changes in the portable's lib directory that other stuff will then break...so realistically, only in Bionicpup64 and above. Unfortunately, this change will be filtering through to ALL the clones, as & when they base themselves on Chromium 92.0.xxxx.xxx onwards. It was going to happen sooner or later; Google have kept the software requirements for Chrome pretty static for a LONG time now, and they were bound to update their build-environment at some point.

They ARE the "champions" of high-security, after all, so I'm not surprised.

#################

I'm going to leave the final 91-series 'portable' up for those who want it. This will run with the older 64-bitzers without issue, and will remain fully-functional for a LONG time to come. You'll find it at the usual link in post #1.

----------------------------------------

The portable now has the addition of scripts to create a Menu entry, if the user decides he/she wants one. The 'MenuReadMe' explains how it all works. I look after you lot..!

---------------------------------------

Available, as always, from the link in post #1. Enjoy!

Mike.

Hi mike,
Took a look at the portable92 with the chrome/lib symlinks removed and saw that you only kept the lib.x.so.x files. The rename_links.sh script I uploaded above was quick and dirty, made with bash ls command to get a list of the symlinks and target files. I used gnumeric to manipulate that list and get all the commands for the script. It worked, but was kind of a "brute force" program and would only apply to that chrome portable.

Since the same renaming technique might be useful for other portable appimage programs for use on fat32 partitions, such as bootable usb drives, I rewrote the script in bash to be generic. This version will work in any directory containing symlinks and target files. It also creates only the lib.x.so.x files, but that can be disabled if needed. To test it , you can copy it into the chrome/lib directory and be sure its executable, open a terminal in the lib directory and run: ./elim_links.sh

wizard

Thank-you very much indeed.

Afternoon, gang.

New version has dropped down the tubes, so here's the Puppy 'portable' version of v92.0.4515.159. Available from the usual link in post #1.

---------------------------------------------

Patches/bug-fixes/workarounds, etc, here:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2 ... sktop.html

Nothing amazing to report, so.....

-----------------------------------------------

As always:- D/l; unzip; move the portable directory to anywhere you want (preferably outside the 'save'.) Click to enter; click the appropriate 'LAUNCH' script to fire it up. The 'LaunchReadMe' explains which one you'll need.

Scripts are included for adding/removing a MenuEntry from the portable's location, wherever you have placed it. The "MenuReadMe" explains how to use these.

Any issues, drop in & let me know.

Enjoy!

Mike.

Hi @mikewalsh,

thank you for all your portable browsers.

In your mega.nz account with your current Chrome_portables_v92.x are two files named "Google_Chrome-portable.tar.gz" (113,4 MB/111,8 MB) with two .md5 hashes.
Both are dated 8/17/2021, (10:31 AM/12:18 PM)

Why the same date? Which one is the latest (92.0.4515.159)?

peace

@one :-

Ah, hell. Sorry about that.

I've just upgraded the Mega desktop sync client in both Bionicpup64 & Fossapup64. They're working okay, but they were somewhat sluggish to get going again after a re-install/re-boot. I'm going to have to keep an eye on them over the next few days, since I'm not yet convinced they're behaving themselves...!

If you check again, I've removed the extraneous pair. Both sets were identical, but I needed to make sure you were all getting the correct MD5sum for the tarball. It's all fixed now.

Mike.

Morning, boys & girls.

Right then; new version time again. (Where does the time go, huh?)

Here's Chrome v93 - specifically, 93.0.4577.63 - packed as the usual Puppy 'portable'.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bugs/fixes/patches, etc, are, as always, detailed here:-

https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2 ... op_31.html

------------------------------------------------------------

Couple of changes. If you find that the system title bar has re-appeared, and can't see a way to disable this in the settings, fear not; Google have moved this option to the right-click context menu on the browsers top bar/tab-strip, and it can be disabled from there.

A new 'PROFILE' directory is now inside the 'DATA' directory, alongside the 'Menu' items. You can drop your existing 'google-chrome' profile in here before firing-up for the first time. It's a good idea to always keep an up-to-date backup of your 'google-chrome' profile in any case, in a safe location.

This is simply to keep things a wee bit tidier, that's all.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Current Chrome no longer runs under either Tahrpup64 OR Xenialpup64, due to GTK-3.0 issues that I haven't yet sussed-out. This may not BE 'workable'; I don't know yet. If you're running either of these Puppies, the 91-series is still available from the usual link.

------------------------------------------------------------

You can find the new version, as always, at the link in post #1. Any probs, y'all know where to find me.

Enjoy.

Mike.

Hello.

I have made an sfs from the official .deb package and run it. Nothing is added to the original.

I manage to run Chrome 92 or later as spot on tahrpup64 6.0.6 with --no-sandbox option.

On the other hand, It seems to run on xenialpup64 without --no-sandbox option like before.

As far as browsers are concerned, I am afraid tahrpup has come to an end of life.