): for that to happen someone from the Arch Linux staff must get interested in using and maintaining this package, there isn't something actionable for you to do here (just keep doing your awesome work and eventually it will happen 🙂). Add brave to one of the official Arch Linux repos (e.g.I'll let others comment on the desired outcome of this issue, I will only clarify the available alternatives: Is the goal of this issue to end up with an official pacman supported version of Brave? or if we were able to solve the other concerns, would we be helping the folks who maintain /packages/brave? But if you don't want these changes, it's trivial to adapt PKGBUILD file. The biggest problem is that Brave is a resource-hungry and most people just don't have time / resources to compile it.īy the way, AUR/brave produces a slightly different binary comparing to what you release on Github, as it also follows extra/chromium to include all Chromium patches from that package (to keep Brave as close to official Arch Linux Chromium package as possible) and VA-API patch from AUR/chromium-vaapi (because how can we refuse Linux users to enjoy smooth energy-efficient video playback!). I think #305 is not really a blocker, the PKGBUILD file in AUR/brave is able to compile Brave just fine. zip archive with pre-compiled Brave binary that you are already providing - in fact, AUR/brave-bin is doing exactly this.Īre there problems compiling from source on Arch linux? (seems there could be - #305 and notes on /packages/brave) deb file and placing its contents to the appropriate folders, however it's not much different comparing to just using a. Yes, as in it's possible to automate unpacking. rpm files that we publish on each release? (if so, does Brave work?) I will try to clarify some bits for you 🙂Īre Arch users able to make use of the.
0 kommentar(er)
