Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Zaman <perfinion@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:19:19
Message-Id: 20160830051903.GA32427@meriadoc
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] chromium-54 needs ffmpeg-3.0.1 by Mike Gilbert
1 On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:15:40PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
2 > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
3 > > On 08/28/2016 07:28 PM, PaweĊ‚ Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
4 > >> B. Backport just the changes needed for chromium to older ffmpeg
5 > >
6 > > Any chance of it being included upstream or would it be a downstream
7 > > carry for a long time?
8 >
9 > I haven't looked at any code, but given that it's a major version bump
10 > of a library, the changes probably involve API-breaks. Backporting
11 > them upstream or downstream is probably not a simple matter, and
12 > probably a bad idea.
13
14 Please don't backport or patch. That sounds like a potential disaster
15 waiting to happen. The tracker bug for ffmpeg 3.0 has been open for
16 quite a while and is taking time. Backporting just parts of it has the
17 potential to break both stable and unstable and the time would be better
18 used working on stabilizing 3.0.
19
20 > >> C. Mask chromium's system-ffmpeg flag when the dependency on
21 > >> ffmpeg-3.0.1 can't be satisfied
22 > >
23 > > Would this result in using bundled libraries instead?
24 >
25 > Yes, masking the system-ffmpeg USE flag would cause the bundled ffmpeg
26 > code to be used.
27 >
28 > The Chromium project applies security fixes quite regularly, so don't
29 > get too worried over it.
30
31 Masking it is fine. Its suboptimal but it has much less breakage-
32 potential. If 3.0 is not stable in time then just mask it.
33
34 Also, is this ffmpeg or libav? or are they the same for 3.x?
35
36 -- Jason