View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kollin Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 1139 Location: Sofia/Bulgaria
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:48 am Post subject: www-client/chromium-27.0.1425.0 & ffmepg |
|
|
Code: | The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
(see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
# required by www-client/chromium-27.0.1425.0
# required by @selected
# required by @world (argument)
=media-video/ffmpeg-1.0.5 opus
|
Why www-client/chromium needs opus flag?
I just made everything fine with libav and now i have to switch back to ffmpeg just because the "opus" flag _________________ "Dear Enemy: may the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment."
"Linux is like a wigwam - no windows, no gates, apache inside..." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
franzf Advocate
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 4565
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. The reason is that libav is incompatible with ffmpeg in some respects, and chromium decided to NOT go with libav. It bundles ffmpeg, but it seems gentoo devs decided to force system-ffmpeg, at least for now:
Code: |
05 Mar 2013; Pawel Hajdan jr <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>
chromium-27.0.1425.0.ebuild, chromium-9999-r1.ebuild:
Enable system ffmpeg by default. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kollin Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 1139 Location: Sofia/Bulgaria
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
franzf wrote: | No. The reason is that libav is incompatible with ffmpeg in some respects, and chromium decided to NOT go with libav. It bundles ffmpeg, but it seems gentoo devs decided to force system-ffmpeg, at least for now:
Code: |
05 Mar 2013; Pawel Hajdan jr <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>
chromium-27.0.1425.0.ebuild, chromium-9999-r1.ebuild:
Enable system ffmpeg by default. |
|
So it's becoming ffmpeg/libav mess. Thanx to chromium i need slotted install of both of them with ability to change in between them with eselect tool ? _________________ "Dear Enemy: may the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment."
"Linux is like a wigwam - no windows, no gates, apache inside..." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
franzf Advocate
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 4565
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMHO there is no possibility to dynamically change between libav and ffmpeg.
And it is not chromiums fault to NOT jump on libav - just ask libav-devs why they randomly break API, reinvent tools (e.g. libswresample vs libavresample) but still keep libname "ilbav". It was them splitting the community by trying to force their implementation.
Just search google for "libav vs ffmpeg", and you will find posts like this one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kollin Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 1139 Location: Sofia/Bulgaria
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ant P. Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 6920
|
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem here is neither chromium nor ffmpeg.
It's that libav wants to be the Internet Explorer of the media codec world; killing competition not by being technically better in any sense, but by being deliberately incompatible with existing code, lying through advertising (by claiming ffmpeg is dead), and playing politics to force people to switch to it.
The solution is to not use libav, not give it mindshare, and promote alternatives with an honest and true-FOSS development model. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mv Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 Posts: 6747
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Originally, I had no opinion in that war, maybe I was even slightly biased for libav. But seeing that first mplayer2 and then libav is making the same stupid mistakes as gnome and gparted - believing that removing core functionality and destroying the main intention of a program (in this case: deal with just any format) is some sort of progress - I have now the clear opinion that ffmpeg is meanwhile technically by far superior. Hearing all the remaining nonsense about unnecessarily breaking APIs and reinventing the wheel out of poor pride makes it clear that ffmpeg is also socially by far superior. Now reading that libav uses Debian to spread evil lies about libav - which reminds strongly about the situation of the lies about the technically far superior cdrtools by the cdrkit "developers" of Debian - my position is clear. The latter alone would have been enough, but the libav developers really did everything to convince me to ban their software from my machines. Just today I was fixing my mask file and I am now happily reemerging ffmpeg. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ulenrich Veteran
Joined: 10 Oct 2010 Posts: 1480
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... like that one person wayland fork promoted big on phoronix, which then just seemed to be a psychotic one man show ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mv Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 Posts: 6747
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
ulenrich wrote: | ... like that one person wayland fork promoted big on phoronix, which then just seemed to be a psychotic one man show ? |
I do not see any relation with the topic. Do you mean that libav or ffmpeg has only one contributor? By all hints I found in the net neither is the case: Both are actively developed by non-tiny groups. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chrisstankevitz Guru
Joined: 14 Dec 2003 Posts: 472 Location: Santa Barbara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: www-client/chromium-27.0.1425.0 & ffmepg |
|
|
Kollin wrote: | Why www-client/chromium needs opus flag? |
I am also curious: why does chromium require the opus flag?
Chris |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 1261 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
WebRTC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|