From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5941384E0 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6F5921C00E; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1D1BE066E for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.93] (dynamic-adsl-84-220-165-116.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.165.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99E8633D947 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50F6A916.7010900@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:20:22 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg References: <50F4DC62.1010500@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50F4DC62.1010500@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 36bb125a-4663-435c-9cb7-46048692c9b2 X-Archives-Hash: c2de635cf1f21c01865cc3faf36dae5f On 15/01/13 05:34, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of > ffmpeg: > > (although not stated there, that includes libav). > > Now the initial response there is not enthusiastic (which doesn't > surprise me), but do you think there are some points useful for the > discussion I'm not aware of? > > What are the main challenges of keeping up-to-date with latest ffmpeg > API changes? How do other projects deal with that? I guess it had been stated there, but is worth noting again that chromium has a specific fork of ffmpeg and they merge and adapt/fix as they need. As Libav we try to see what they are doing and when possible either import their fix or redo it in a more general way if it doesn't fit normal consumption (see our review process policy for more details). Their API usage is quite normal nowadays (after we convinced them to use AVIO instead of the deprecate URLProtocol, for our and their respective pleasure since it resulted in slashing a good chunk of cruft) Feel free to nag me if something breaks with a system libav. lu