[question] what about just packaging chromedriver?

[bollwyvl]

Thanks for this, I'm glad it is here... and might use it to test some stuff like conda-forge/staged-recipes#5735 !

I imagine the build chain to build chromedriver is a bit of a bear... however, might we not (also) package the chromedriver binaries themselves rather than downloading them at use time? Especially for testing, it's nice to have all your dependencies cached, and this would require a special case for, e.g. travis.

[igortg]

I can't see the point in having a separate package just for chromedriver. Sure it'll be a more elegant solution, but since chromedriver binaries and its python package are tightly coupled (versions are always in sync), the gains would be marginal.

But that's just me. Maybe I'm missing some point here.

[bollwyvl]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018,

But that's just me. Maybe I'm missing some point here.

Off the top of my head: - shorter name - don't want python in your env - better provenance of the hashes - not having to use a script to get the location

[igortg]

Sometimes I forget that a lot of people use Conda outside Python/R word 😄

Do you intend to create the package just for chromedriver? If yes, we'd be glad to use it in this recipe