Re: FFmpeg-8.0 Warning

On 2025-09-23 13:18, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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.
> 


We can actually do more then just that. Because Firefox only links to 
ffmpeg at runtime, you can actually keep both 8.0 and 7.1.1 installed 
(what I've been doing for the last week). You essentially just have to 
keep all the .so files except the ones that should link to the latest 
version (i.e ending in just .so and not .so.58). I've been doing this 
for the last week and firefox works great for me and packages are still 
linking to ffmpeg 8.0 at build time. Something similar to this: 
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ffmpeg4.4

We could do this for the book if we want...
-- 
--Rahul

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