1 |
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:28:48 +0200 |
2 |
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> C. Mask chromium's system-ffmpeg flag when the dependency on |
5 |
> ffmpeg-3.0.1 can't be satisfied |
6 |
|
7 |
I'd pick this option, mostly because this is the path that introduces |
8 |
the least amount of space for breaking users setups. |
9 |
|
10 |
We've established there's a lot of problem with having system-wide |
11 |
ffmpeg 3.0, so running towards that seems foolish. |
12 |
|
13 |
Patching chromimum to not need 3.0 seems also slightly dodgy. |
14 |
|
15 |
Though I would be ok with a compromise between C and D, where |
16 |
system-ffmpeg implied the patch, but otherwise left chromium building |
17 |
with its bundled ffmpeg. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
Then the decision about masking USE="system-ffmpeg" depends on how |
21 |
stable we expect the patch to be. |
22 |
|
23 |
Keeping in mind that both case C and D will leave us open to a future |
24 |
chromium being built with ffmpeg3, and we'll need to make sure that |
25 |
transition is also smooth. |
26 |
|
27 |
but for the sake of simplicity, I would just hardmask the useflag until |
28 |
we know it will work, and then unmask it. |