Hello all,
So sorry for the delay in pushing this update, I was travelling for a funeral and wasn't able to get to a computer.
Please take a moment of your day to tell those close to you that you love them.
Cheers,
Sam
| Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/helium-browser-bin.git (read-only, click to copy) |
|---|---|
| Package Base: | helium-browser-bin |
| Description: | Private, fast, and honest web browser based on Chromium (Latest/Stable) |
| Upstream URL: | https://github.com/imputnet/helium-linux |
| Licenses: | GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause |
| Conflicts: | helium-browser-beta-bin |
| Provides: | helium-browser-beta-bin |
| Submitter: | playleft |
| Maintainer: | playleft |
| Last Packager: | playleft |
| Votes: | 84 |
| Popularity: | 10.26 |
| First Submitted: | 2025-09-14 12:03 (UTC) |
| Last Updated: | 2026-07-18 07:38 (UTC) |
Hello all,
So sorry for the delay in pushing this update, I was travelling for a funeral and wasn't able to get to a computer.
Please take a moment of your day to tell those close to you that you love them.
Cheers,
Sam
oops I marked it OOD before checking out the pinned comment, sorry :(
Spixmaster,
I've now updated the checksums for patch 0002 in v0.12.5.1-2. Many thanks for pointing this out, and my apologies to all for the oversight.
FYI, this change to 0002-align-desktop-entry.patch simply includes the SPDX identifier header that I forgot to include in v0.12.4.1. This is to ensure reuse licensing compliance.
Let me know if there's any other issues.
Cheers,
Sam
The hash was not updated.
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
0001-update-wrapper-arch.patch ... Passed
0002-align-desktop-entry.patch ... FAILED
LICENSE.ungoogled_chromium ... Passed
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
error: failed to download sources for 'helium-browser-bin-0.12.5.1-1':
error: packages failed to build: helium-browser-bin-0.12.5.1-1
Hello everyone,
v0.12.4.1 includes an amendment to align patch 0002 with upstream changes to the .desktop file, which no longer includes the StartupWMClass value.
Ref: https://github.com/imputnet/helium-linux/pull/296
Cheers,
Sam
Knotrocket,
Do you know which version is used by Helium when set to "Use QT" and why there are two .so libraries?
I can confirm that Helium only requires qt5-base after reviewing strace outputs. Testing with 'Use QT' enabled and disabled, version six is not called even when installed on my system. I believe the namcap results flagging version six was due to my system having the package installed. Also checking upstream, builds only include the qt5base-dev package (on Debian) 1.
So I think it's safe to say that we don't need version six, but version five should be included as an optional dependency for these and previously mentioned reasons. I will bump packaging to version two with this amendment shortly.
This issue and strace outputs has been documented here: https://github.com/s6muel/helium-browser-bin/issues/47
Please accept apologies for any inconvenience caused, and for the delay in responding.
Cheers,
Sam
Hey, I noticed that the url variable isn't really used in the source reference in the PKGBUILD, I think using the variable there is probably convenient, that way you only define it once and use it in the other places. Thanks!
Before making changes, might I propose that we move the qt{5,6}-base to optdepends, while inviting any suggestions and discussion.
Sounds good to me! I commented here because in my case qt5-base was not already installed when updating helium.
Do you know which version is used by Helium when set to "Use QT" and why there are two .so libraries?
Knotrocket,
After review, I think adding qt{5,6}-base was an unnecessary addition on my part in strictly adhering to namcap results. As you pointed out, this seems like a dependency for those that are using themes and at minimum should move to optdepends, but there's justification for their removal all together. Removal would align packaging with google-chrome which we might consider as the baseline standard for Chromium packaging. A namcap audit of the latest google-chrome packaging yields similar results to Helium.
However, my interpretation of the PKGBUILD guidelines [1] would suggest that we keep these as optional dependencies, since they 'provide additional features.' Additionally, namcap identifies these packages as optional dependencies and running find-deps against the latest Helium packaging would suggest the same.
Before making changes, might I propose that we move the qt{5,6}-base to optdepends, while inviting any suggestions and discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Cheers,
Sam
Pinned Comments
playleft commented on 2026-02-20 12:04 (UTC) (edited on 2026-02-20 12:05 (UTC) by playleft)
Hello all,
Kindly note: this packaging tracks the stable branch of
helium-linux. Before marking this package out of date, please check the latest version here: https://github.com/imputnet/helium-linux/releases/latest. There can be anywhere from 10 minutes, up to a week (happened once) before upstream marks a release as "Latest."If you wish to track the beta/pre-releases branch, you can use the
helium-browser-beta-binpackage.Cheers,
Sam
playleft commented on 2026-01-03 00:42 (UTC) (edited on 2026-01-03 00:48 (UTC) by playleft)
Installing Helium's PGP key
Since Helium 0.7.7.2 you will need Helium's PGP signature to verify the tarballs on install. This is a once off/once per system process.
1. Get the key and signature. (Optional)
Obtain Helium's signing key from https://github.com/imputnet/helium-linux#signature and save the key to a file.
2. Verify the signature (Optional)
Run
gpg --show-key /PATH/TO/helium_pub.asc. What returns should match the first comment of Helium's PGP key block, and thevalidpgpkeysentry in the PKGBUILD.3. Install the key
gpg --import /path/to/helium_pub.ascgpg --keyserver hkps://keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys BE677C1989D35EAB2C5F26C9351601AD01D6378E4. Verify the key install
5. Install helium as normal