At some point www-client/chromium package has a bug that made it impossible to build with GCC. Gentoo's ebuild resorted to forcing clang for building Chromium. Nowadays, Chromium been fixed and is buildable with GCC with no issues, at least version 69 is. Would be great to provide an option to build with GCC back.
Created attachment 550612 [details, diff] chromium-69.0.3497.100.ebuild patch to build with GCC This is a modification to the ebuild I used for testing. Tried a number of flag configurations: - with and without component-build - with and without widevine - with and without cups
70.0.3538.54 and 71.0.3573.0 both fail to build with GCC 8.2.0. I don't want to switch back to gcc until I have some confidence that it will work for successive releases.
I see someone else who really also is fed up of clang I have had successful successive between 67-69 (included) atm unable to build with either still gcc if i un-force clang or clang itself for and including 70+ I mentioned in another bug report about the chromium package itself being available from google themselves,so its really not like it needs to be build manually to create a package for everyone, the job is already done So why the resistance on making a binary available or must we be forced to build one of the most painful package to build when a solution is available as binary just as firefox and libreoffice have... At least it will give a choice to users who are unable to build it in its current half baked state... What will it take for the chromium team to take a bit of time to give us a binary version of chromium???
Btw as a note, i can build firefox without the slightest issues with clang and GCC, at least they have a choice it seems as well as binary for firefox if one wants, seems the chromium should take a hint and maybe ask help for chromium from the Firefox team...
(In reply to Denis Descheneaux from comment #3) Firstly, I don't really appreciate the entitled attitude you are giving off. Please keep in mind that I am an unpaid volunteer who owes you absolutely nothing. I already maintain ebuilds for a pre-built version of Chromium - it's called www-client/google-chrome. I don't see any reason to maintain an inferior binary package based on developer builds of Chromium. Regarding GCC: I would greatly appreciate help in making the latest versions compile with both gcc and clang. If you can find/write patches to make M70 and M71 work, I would be happy to apply them. To make testing easier, I have added a magic variable to the chromium ebuilds called CHROMIUM_FORCE_CLANG. You can disable forced-clang like this: CHROMIUM_FORCE_CLANG=no emerge www-client/chromium
Funny thing "I already maintain ebuilds for a pre-built version of Chromium - it's called www-client/google-chrome. I don't see any reason to maintain an inferior binary package based on developer builds of Chromium." This btw is a binary of chromium: https://download-chromium.appspot.com/ And Chromium and Chrome are two different things, perhaps you should inform yourself and learn the difference... https://threatbrief.com/difference-google-chrome-chromium-browser/ As for the inferior product its the one we can't build which you qualify as a superior product... as far as i am concerned Simply feels like your idea is i am right and everyone else is wrong, even if it does not work. You think i am being harsh with you, or you dont like it when users complain about something I wonder in #gentoo how many would prefer using a binary if you would actually care to make one, not everyone wants to build chromium and especially as it it now...
(In reply to Denis Descheneaux from comment #6) Please do not leave any further comments on this bug report. Your input is not useful.
Like i said, you are right and everyone else is wrong, because someone does not agree with you
chromium-69 will be removed from the tree soon due to bug 668986.
