Re: FFmpeg-8.0 Warning
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9/22/25 3:54 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote: > On 9/20/25 9:02 PM, Zeckma ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote: >> FFmpeg-8.0 is ABI incompatible with 7.1. BLFS in the development books >> has updated to FFmpeg-8.0. Several packages do not yet support >> FFmpeg-8.0. Some of our own editing team have been bitten from >> incompatibilites, such as: >> 1. Unable to watch live streams. >> 2. Unable to watch several videos and movies. >> 3. Unable to access healthcare portals. >> 4. Epic hangs. >> 5. Packages fail to build against FFmpeg-8.0 like MLT. >> >> I estimate these issues won't get fixed for around another month. Thus, >> I recommend to NOT upgrade to FFmpeg-8.0 to avoid a lot of headaches >> and to ensure compatibility with all the software you currently use. >> >> If you already upgraded or freshly installed FFmpeg-8.0 on your LFS >> system, it would be a good idea to rollback to FFmpeg-7.1. >> >> We may look into rolling back FFmpeg in the book. We pushed it out >> in the book way too early. >> >> I will send another email when the dust has settled and when it seems >> mostly safe to install FFmpeg-8.0. >> >> Apologies to any users with FFmpeg-8.0 currently installed as a result >> of it being in the BLFS development (svn/git) book. >> >> - Zeckma >> > I would like to propose to everyone the idea of reverting back to ffmpeg-7.1 until at > least Firefox is fixed. > > The Epic in question is related to healthcare portals, such as those for Northwestern > Medicine and AdvocateAurora Health Care. These portals use AVIF images to handle part > of their websites. These now hang on Firefox with ffmpeg-8, and Firefox will have to > be killed. If using ffmpeg-7.1 on the same system, they work just fine. I am not convinced that we should roll back a package in the *development* book. We already say on virtually every page: "Development versions of BLFS may not build or run some packages properly if LFS or dependencies have been updated since the most recent stable versions of the books." It is good that the editors know about the problem, but we need the newer version installed on development systems to test when dependent packages are updated. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev Unsubscribe: See the above information page