Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> I wonder if it would be relevant for us to rely on the openh264
> repository in our infra ?
>
> It seems at least that the chromium freeworld flavor rely on a builtin
> version whereas it could use the fedora version, it's a case I wasn't
> aware.
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld also uses a bundled openh264. As of 5.9.0, it
cannot even officially be unbundled. They added support for that since, I am
not sure in what release exactly that will ship. It could probably be
backported, …
… but the main issue I have with building against the openh264 repository is
that this would then introduce a dependency on yet another repository for my
users. I think that in this case, it may make more sense to just keep the
bundled version (also in chromium-media-libs-freeworld, which is in the same
situation).
That, or actually ship openh264 in RPM Fusion free. It's not like RPM Fusion
has to care about the patent issues that force that Cisco-hosted repo to
begin with. (RPM Fusion free already ships at least one H.264 decoder (the
builtin decoder in FFmpeg) and at least one H.264 encoder (x264), both of
which support more of the standard than OpenH264, so shipping OpenH264
should not expose RPM Fusion to any additional liabilities.)
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
