Re: FFmpeg-8.0 Warning

On 9/23/25 12:02 PM, Zeckma ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote:
> On 9/23/25 10:31, Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via blfs-dev
> Mailing List) wrote:
>  > On 9/22/25 3:54 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" ([email protected]
>  > via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote:
>  >> I would like to propose to everyone the idea of reverting back to
>  >> ffmpeg-7.1 until at least Firefox is fixed.
>  >
>  > 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.
> 
> I have said this on other threads (or maybe just one), but some users
> depend on the development books for one reason or another and treat it
> as a stable+. Some users even see it as more stable than the actual
> stable books. I think a goal we should have is to ensure most, if not
> everything, works in the development books. Both to ensure that users
> reading the dev books won't run into major hiccups and to save us
> headaches when we do mass testing / tagging packages.
> 
> I think if this is the way we are going and will accept these issues in
> the development books, I believe we should at least try to make it a
> point of warning users on specific packages of certain issues that
> exist as a result of the package version if it's known about, something
> that the editors have experienced (not necessarily every bug and
> regression known upstream as that would be too much a burden). Even a
> very brief summary of issues on a given package and providing a link to
> a more stable version would do a lot of good.
> 
> In the case of FFmpeg, it can go something like this:
> [NOTE]
> FFmpeg-&ffmpeg-version; at the moment causes issues with media playback
> in Firefox. Consider using [LINK TO BLFS-12.3 FFmpeg] for a more stable
> experience.

I'm OK with this.

For editors, I think we could have two versions of ffmpeg installed and control which 
binaries are used by adjusting the PATH as needed for each test.  We might also need 
LD_LIBRARY_PATH also.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page