(chromium) Update failing to push as embedded nupkg too large about chocolatey-packages HOT 8 CLOSED

From a comment I saw, somebody was pointing to ungoogled-chromium for Arm64 and x86 editions. So that sounds like an alternative if somebody wants the x86 version.

I would suggest we don't switch maintainers and therefore remove the x86 build entirely from this. I'd be interested to hear from @AdmiringWorm .

from chocolatey-packages.

Should we stop internalizing the x86 version, and leave the x64? That'll cut size in half, and hopefully provide the best overall user experience?

from chocolatey-packages.

I'd agree with this. The precedent has been set with other packages already doing this - embed the x64, download the x86 at runtime.

from chocolatey-packages.

As it happens, for the source we've picked, I found this comment:

No idea about Marmaduke but as for me, I have decided to stop building 32-bit variants when Chromium dropped support for Windows 7. I can't imagine many people using 32-bit versions on Windows 10/11 and it doubles build time for each version which costs me in electricity.

There hasn't been an x86 update from that maintainer since January.

Would we prefer to change maintainer, or entirely drop x86? It seems legitimate to consider.

from chocolatey-packages.

I suggest keeping the x86 version still, but to have it be downloaded when needed. And only embed the 64-bit version.

The ungoogled-chromium package does not include Arm64 nor x86 editions; even if it was, it isn't equal to the standard chromium build.

from chocolatey-packages.

I suggest keeping the x86 version still, but to have it be downloaded when needed. And only embed the 64-bit version.

The only thing here is that the version will never match, nor be updated. I'll flip the PR over from draft, though, if that's the preference.

@corbob has also pointed out that the x86 version is present and updating in the dev stream, so removing the x86 from the regular stream would make the build a little more complex. Definitely easier to leave it in.

from chocolatey-packages.

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?
This issue will be closed in 14 days if it continues to be inactive.

Please do not add a comment to circumvent automatic closure unless you plan to help move it forward.
Doing this may lead to the issue being closed immediately instead.

from chocolatey-packages.

Dear contributor,

As this issue seems to have been inactive for quite some time now, I've automatically closed it.
If you feel this is a valid issue, please feel free to re-open the issue if/when a pull request
has been added.
Thank you for your contribution.

from chocolatey-packages.