On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:15:40PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On 08/28/2016 07:28 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > >> B. Backport just the changes needed for chromium to older ffmpeg > > > > Any chance of it being included upstream or would it be a downstream > > carry for a long time? > > I haven't looked at any code, but given that it's a major version bump > of a library, the changes probably involve API-breaks. Backporting > them upstream or downstream is probably not a simple matter, and > probably a bad idea.
Please don't backport or patch. That sounds like a potential disaster waiting to happen. The tracker bug for ffmpeg 3.0 has been open for quite a while and is taking time. Backporting just parts of it has the potential to break both stable and unstable and the time would be better used working on stabilizing 3.0. > >> C. Mask chromium's system-ffmpeg flag when the dependency on > >> ffmpeg-3.0.1 can't be satisfied > > > > Would this result in using bundled libraries instead? > > Yes, masking the system-ffmpeg USE flag would cause the bundled ffmpeg > code to be used. > > The Chromium project applies security fixes quite regularly, so don't > get too worried over it. Masking it is fine. Its suboptimal but it has much less breakage- potential. If 3.0 is not stable in time then just mask it. Also, is this ffmpeg or libav? or are they the same for 3.x? -- Jason
