Some random questions

[Tiagoquix]

Hi,

I ran a diff of the PKGBUILD from official chromium package vs. this repo's PKGBUILD and here are some note-worthy differences that I'd like to ask some questions about (red is original, green is ungoogled):

---

54c62
<             'org.freedesktop.secrets: password storage backend on GNOME, KDE and Xfce'
---
>             'org.freedesktop.secrets: password storage backend on GNOME / Xfce'

Minor, but could be synced with the official pkg.

---

• File chromium-146-build-with-wasm-rollup.patch not present in ungoogled-chromium. Intentional?

---

• Two chromium v148 patches not present; it's alright, since we are on v147 yet, but just noting it here as a reminder.

---

103c109
<   [harfbuzz]=harfbuzz
---
>   [harfbuzz-ng]=harfbuzz

Why is this different?

---

• Comment for patch chromium-146-drop-unknown-clang-flag.patch is notably different from the official PKGBUILD. Minor, but could be synced.

---

192,204d183
[...]
<   # Link to system tools required by the build
<   mkdir -p third_party/node/linux/node-linux-x64/bin \
<            third_party/rust-toolchain/bin \
<            third_party/jdk/current/bin
< 
<   ln -s /usr/bin/node third_party/node/linux/node-linux-x64/bin/
<   ln -s /usr/bin/rustc third_party/rust-toolchain/bin/
<   ln -s /usr/bin/java third_party/jdk/current/bin/
< 
213a193,208
[...]
> 
>   # Link to system tools required by the build
>   mkdir -p third_party/node/linux/node-linux-x64/bin third_party/jdk/current/bin
>   ln -s /usr/bin/node third_party/node/linux/node-linux-x64/bin/
>   ln -s /usr/bin/java third_party/jdk/current/bin/
> 

Rust-related lines are missing. Intentional?

---

• Missing enable_hangout_services_extension flag. Chromium has it set to true. Not sure if relevant to even set it to false in ungoogled's case, but pointing it out nonetheless.

---

275c269,271
[...]
>     'use_vaapi=true'
>     'enable_platform_hevc=true'
>     'enable_hevc_parser_and_hw_decoder=true'

These flags are not present in the official Chromium package, but I assume they're here to provide support for H.264 and related codecs with patents. But, if so, why wouldn't the Chromium package use the same flags as well?

---

332,340c332
<   if [[ $CARCH == aarch64 ]] || [[ $CARCH == riscv64 ]]; then
<     # On aarch64 and riscv64, certain files (e.g. in libvpx and libyuv) needs to
<     # be compiled with additional arch features (e.g. dotprod, sve, sme, rvv)
<     # Having an arch setting in the C(XX)FLAGS overrides those
<     # and causes compilation failure
<     CFLAGS="${CFLAGS/-march=*([^ ]) }"
<     CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS/-march=*([^ ]) }"
<   fi
< 
---
>   msg2 'Configuring Chromium'
342c334,335
<   ninja -C out/Release chrome chrome_sandbox chromedriver.unstripped
---
>   msg2 'Building Chromium'
>   ninja -C out/Release chrome chrome_sandbox chromedriver
354c347
<   install -Dv out/Release/chromedriver.unstripped "$pkgdir/usr/bin/chromedriver"
---
>   install -Dv out/Release/chromedriver "$pkgdir/usr/bin/chromedriver"

Some different install commands. The removal of aarch64/riscv64 is undersandable. But why the different install commands? Shouldn't they be synced?

---

Thanks for your attention. I opened this issue because I would like to see the current PKGBUILD more closely match Arch's upstream for chromium, whenever possible. So it is more cleaner. :)