Currently debian/rules:52 disables hangouts services (which includes screenshare feature). I didn't test it, but based on information elsewhere, simply enabling the flag should make Google Hangouts screensharing work with Chromium.
tags 886358 +patch thanks I tested this with my local build, and it works for me(tm) with attached simple patch.
This is the intended default configuration. For those that would like it enabled in their version, the suggested patch is correct. Best wishes, Mike
unarchive 886358 reopen 886358 thanks Sorry for re-opeing this bug, but it cost me some time to find that Debian disables the shreen sharing extention in its build of chromium. search nor looking in the Debian source package found any hint: * Does it make the package non-free/contrib * Is it an security issue? * or is there some other technical reason to disable it in Debian? After re-compiling chromium with that extension enabled I was finally able to use the screen sharing extension with my colleges. Also (a different issue): NEW still contains this text: But: So this looks out-of-date. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Philipp
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of chromium-browser, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 886358@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> (supplier of updated chromium-browser package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org) Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 01:45:12 +0000 Source: chromium-browser Binary: chromium chromium-l10n chromium-shell chromium-driver chromium-common Architecture: source Version: 69.0.3497.81-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Chromium Team <chromium-browser@packages.debian.org> Changed-By: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> Description: chromium - web browser chromium-common - web browser - common resources used by the chromium packages chromium-driver - web browser - WebDriver support chromium-l10n - web browser - language packs chromium-shell - web browser - minimal shell Closes: 886358 Changes: chromium-browser (69.0.3497.81-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Disable swiftshader. * Move file needed for the armhf build to where it is expected. * Document disabled built-in extensions in README.debian (closes: #886358). Checksums-Sha1: cd9cf13af44d265469ab43c6e53ddfa0c0b52804 4202 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.dsc 8c709a91a16df15fcc22deec9c5080f846a3e2b9 147140 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.debian.tar.xz 2c5145163ea7f39f3675ca9a0245e655ab1b230a 19472 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 20f2eafaa3db7af357d4d3d54ad4455558121df5c41838527fcedc976f2d0289 4202 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.dsc 69ad1f3f9232cdb1e85bbc494ea07c5b80dae9ca1d6846002be950a58ee3db9d 147140 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.debian.tar.xz 0534b32ef243af9af028b08b4a0dd71711fe6ffec470335261068feeeec11ba3 19472 chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2_source.buildinfo Files: 39a6b3e6eabc9e8e4cd9dc9f2c3c45ae 4202 web optional chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.dsc 57544133cd711575f7ea4161c7316516 147140 web optional chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2.debian.tar.xz da1b319f7bbbebe6cd469695bdd13114 19472 web optional chromium-browser_69.0.3497.81-2_source.buildinfo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQQzBAEBCgAdFiEEluhy7ASCBulP9FUWuNayzQLW9HMFAluQxpAACgkQuNayzQLW 9HNyVh/7BBLGEbZl+w3jYwsh2CfZppJO/KTvR70hQNJ2cnEbk1LNJLTlsCoYprFj Z7a8r7fAXQ28BRL7KB8RyWEEJsNKL57YVDu6wFOvRn3HJCtVc7a2usw53s9CqnEl RiIwfsc13mUtCQzZmsaMAcuddXj5e1l+N8Ix/ZLg3LztfeVavnsCyqa2x/EibzI+ 91c4OcnAlBZNH2MlvIOrPp/gFBvddyzx1+T3o4oD/im7PKyMLoZi6fUr9nh8LOMN ITB5vrTl3c1G4qoqPiEQIlU4NyqNd8zcgpRTMh3/5HIQUMlglYL9KwVIHxBXpqeW F5xkn2tAYPpoJ6cXnFLzAsatQJB0R7XM0PSfIjtG5xbre1vGt42sgCAMVepyOrME FlLtZ0VmwdZ6RiloUyt6IM8vkE5YOFMEDWS5U43q8H63CF129jewoal0L5+wdK6E VzQw0VGOU33Q47x3jKUhXBFVaW6azQgpglYuhoUpGN9GhVc4VYPozwR9nPP8yk/V FT/v14Zt5ulwmUW8mHUQFXwfUGb9nOMzmk2pNvFL5zAE+Stq+NDDwrqkaI5XvArw MidsEi1CiDxIZVRLxoloXexUgMAFqmj8IOFFj1OJqBRSWE+2+3kqj0YwaIwuZOuC /mRx/GjRAjdM+sRESJ/SZHsNMPZMN1m56gQNV3HPmknhZucTAiozye5ByLaP3h7M NH+jTuWysRzToCIfOEBPad4uoqy2G3ZDQQhpfBu78an2pIELUM6Md/gF6yWkFVzz Igl+QUo0Fv6pNbK9G2jfx6PGC3wavzrNmHJWR2jepGhX0yoDXza+Mzpd5abNv6MO +giLAiXtAYVRDliI19FKVZGKwj36CWsC8RQajI/BV9sER6tVZzyAawDWyzTlnMBo qwU7y7/+MeT0f9+OvSCfpB+heba1PgmRC43y0bxkhIsBHCXABDartesVboCn9xQJ /NEmIM8jHo0eVn6l1C2yT8Z9fSLwAX5YO9VZRGDrkpGY0mPrk+mRtbA+8dfci8KF 9GlXmJ4aVb88+lAFw1Ii32rMG99j92hMlVVeppFoGPRtmbMHlDFz/X18t4pIngVT jXHWPJrsEwBXlCoKOt1UPHsf7dYDwFn7DurB9TAOK9zOYrUIx8WO0rrFHHde4ap6 C05A4EX6ewnKMqNibsOMwA60JYEqvfWU4OlkT7T9qjsVSsn5mpk9UJNymXgga0uN xD+TAN90L0Ix3fcPVeL0CBcqejOkRt6RHqO3TtbYlTcX3OIOozTvW9Eqj8oOoSdc 6A4v60RcjwFg7O67OVJ8BZ+Upl8ni7hhQLxA4UP1NqgAh1C2YgdHBAQ0tITNEVIY Gzx9VB0uJnSdsx9zIMJiKS07HjRvWQ== =71tO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
reopen 886358 thanks The new text in README.Debian does not answer any of these questions. Quoting the relevant section in its entirety: This is not in any way an explanation. "users have stated concern" - *what* concern? Rebuilding the Chromium package is not a viable path for most people, especially since the package gets updated regularly. Having this disabled breaks the ability to do screen sharing in Hangouts meetings. Having this enabled causes...what problem, precisely? I'm not suggesting that this extension is the ideal method to enable that functionality; indeed, there are more standard WebRTC features that could work instead. But that's not the question at hand. At the very least, this needs an explanation commensurate with "why is it important to break people's ability to do screen sharing by default in a way they won't easily discover and can't easily fix". If there's a reason that outweighs that, it needs to be documented. And if there *isn't* a reason that outweighs that, then please enable this extension.
It may be a potential security concern. The code for the Hangout Services component extension lives in chrome/browser/resources/hangout_services/. All "enable_hangout_services_extension=true" does is include this code in Chromium. In essence, the extension allows "https://*.google.com/*" with access to do the following: * Get browser process CPU, network, and memory usage (chrome.processes, in function onProcessCpu) * Initiate desktop capture UI (chrome.desktopCapture and chrome.webrtcDesktopCapturePrivate, in function onChooseDesktopMediaPort) * Get CPU info (chrome.system.cpu, in callback for chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal) * Get and set WebRTC audio sinks and audio experiments (chrome.webrtcAudioPrivate, in onSinksChangedPort and in callback for chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal) * Stop, start, and upload WebRTC logs, RTP logs, and audio debug recordings (chrome.webrtcLoggingPrivate, in callback for chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal) The greatest unknowns here are the chrome.*Private APIs, since they're exposed only to component extensions (and thus not documented well). I don't know how they're implemented, so I cannot speak for the security of these APIs. Overall, this extension seems to be filling a small gap that the standards haven't provided yet. IMO, this isn't really that much of a security risk. Alternatively, this extension could be a privacy concern for Google (in light of reports of Google's data practices). The inclusion of a patch to disable signing-in (in the source at debian/patches/disable/signin.patch) seems to support this idea, but then why are Google API keys included in the browser (installed to /etc/chromium.d/apikeys)?
Hi, all. I don't know if this issue is related to the issues that I'm seeing, but, when using google meet during this pandemic times, I frequently have problems trying to share my screen. I don't know if "Google Meet screensharing" == "Hangouts screensharing". For some reason, using Firefox (at least as packaged in Debian) results in very high loads on my system (and the fans of my laptop blowing very hard to the point of participants of lectures complaining about my presence). That high load absolutely doesn't happen when using chromium, for some reason (even when I try to enable vaapi in current versions of firefox). OTOH, with Firefox I can share my screen, while, with chromium, as packaged, I get a message along the lines of "screensharing isn't supported by your browser" with version 83.x from sid. That being said and going to the discussion around this issue: I don't buy this explanation. In fact, it is very inconsistent with the fact that widevine is enabled and binary blobs are downloaded. In my view of the situation, it is worse to let binary blobs downloaded from the very company that we are suspicious of tracking us. Some of the code above could, in principle, be stubbed and return some fixed responses, if one is concerned about fingerprinting and similar tracking stuff. That's one of the differences from binary blobs and code that is available and that can be patched. In terms of *security*, I would guess that Google is vigilant about this, since they care deeply about the browser that they produce to not have holes. About the *privacy*, that's a completely different matter (and I would say that they also care deeply about this, but in the other direction, possibly). :-) If that can/could be conditionally enabled for users that are concerned (I would be too, I use Firefox with bazillion of privacy enhancing plugins), that would be great. But some users have to use hangouts/meet/whatever (even jitsi, which is one of the most privacy-conscious options that has widespread use), due to reasons beyond their control (e.g., meetings where the decisions are made top-down). In summary, if one is going to disable hangouts/etc, at least be consistent and disable widevine... And, of course, compiling a personal copy of chromium isn't really an option for end-users (for lack of know-how)... Heck, even for develpers that have the technical knowlege, having the resources to compile big C++ programs is totally non-trivial... I would argue that the current situation is, even, a disservice to our users, and, as a consequence, as a violation of item 4 of the Social Contract. Rogério Brito.
Hi, all. I don't know if this issue is related to the issues that I'm seeing, but, when using google meet during this pandemic times, I frequently have problems trying to share my screen. I don't know if "Google Meet screensharing" == "Hangouts screensharing". For some reason, using Firefox (at least as packaged in Debian) results in very high loads on my system (and the fans of my laptop blowing very hard to the point of participants of lectures complaining about my presence). That high load absolutely doesn't happen when using chromium, for some reason (even when I try to enable vaapi in current versions of firefox). OTOH, with Firefox I can share my screen, while, with chromium, as packaged, I get a message along the lines of "screensharing isn't supported by your browser" with version 83.x from sid. That being said and going to the discussion around this issue: I don't buy this explanation. In fact, it is very inconsistent with the fact that widevine is enabled and binary blobs are downloaded. In my view of the situation, it is worse to let binary blobs downloaded from the very company that we are suspicious of tracking us. Some of the code above could, in principle, be stubbed and return some fixed responses, if one is concerned about fingerprinting and similar tracking stuff. That's one of the differences from binary blobs and code that is available and that can be patched. In terms of *security*, I would guess that Google is vigilant about this, since they care deeply about the browser that they produce to not have holes. About the *privacy*, that's a completely different matter (and I would say that they also care deeply about this, but in the other direction, possibly). :-) If that can/could be conditionally enabled for users that are concerned (I would be too, I use Firefox with bazillion of privacy enhancing plugins), that would be great. But some users have to use hangouts/meet/whatever (even jitsi, which is one of the most privacy-conscious options that has widespread use), due to reasons beyond their control (e.g., meetings where the decisions are made top-down). In summary, if one is going to disable hangouts/etc, at least be consistent and disable widevine... And, of course, compiling a personal copy of chromium isn't really an option for end-users (for lack of know-how)... Heck, even for develpers that have the technical knowlege, having the resources to compile big C++ programs is totally non-trivial... I would argue that the current situation is, even, a disservice to our users, and, as a consequence, as a violation of item 4 of the Social Contract. Rogério Brito.
This is incorrect. Enabling Widevine support in the browser will not do anything unless the Widevine shared object is downloaded and installed manually. This is documented in README.debian: https://salsa.debian.org/chromium-team/chromium/-/blob/7810576a1215c28d5daff0e0fbd0e3687fc43d72/debian/README.debian#L32 I agree in the essence of this point. I would also like to re-iterate the point I made last message about how Sign-in is disabled via a patch even though Google API keys are included. Disabling Sign-in makes the API keys effectively useless. Overall, I think Philipp, Josh, Rogério and I all agree that Debian needs to clearly define expectations/guidelines on how the chromium package will interact with Google. Right now, Debian's stance seems inconsistent at best, and that is creating a confusing user experience. Regards, Eloston
Hello, I see the last message on this issue is from September 2020 and screen sharing still doesn't seem to work with the latest stable version (90.0.4430.212). I am not well versed in the chromium project, but is this "Hangout Services Extension" something that could be turned on or off at the flags level (chrome://flags/) - or some other browser level, rather than the compile level? If not, is it something that could be asked to the chromium project? Regards