1 |
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:28:48 +0200 |
2 |
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> See <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591722> for context. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> chromium-54 is currently hard masked; it'd soon enter ~arch, and then |
7 |
> stable in ~6 weeks. ffmpeg-3.0.1 is currently hard masked. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> These are the options I see for how to proceed. Feel free to share |
10 |
> further alternatives. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> A. Prepare to unmask and eventually stabilize ffmpeg-3.0.1 |
13 |
|
14 |
Don't use 3.0. Go for 3.1.x. |
15 |
|
16 |
Except that, it's ideal, but revdeps need to be fixed somehow first. |
17 |
Help is actually deeply needed to push forward this agenda. |
18 |
|
19 |
Good news is that Toralf already ran the tinderbox on both ~arch and |
20 |
stable. Bad news is that there are a lot of failures. Some are not |
21 |
simple to fix. |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> B. Backport just the changes needed for chromium to older ffmpeg |
25 |
|
26 |
I doubt that is sanely possible. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> C. Mask chromium's system-ffmpeg flag when the dependency on |
30 |
> ffmpeg-3.0.1 can't be satisfied |
31 |
|
32 |
It's a bad idea I think. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
> D. Patch chromium not to require newer ffmpeg |
36 |
|
37 |
Maybe the simplest temporary solution, it is equivalent to B. except we |
38 |
don't change every other consumer of the lib. |
39 |
|
40 |
In the end, I think if A. can't be sanely achieved, D. is the only |
41 |
option. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
Any clue on what chromium requires from 3.x+ ? |