Control: tag -1 patch

On Mon Aug 10, 2026 at 10:54 AM CEST, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/ammen99/wf-recorder/issues/350
> Control: tag -1 upstream
>
> On Sun Aug 9, 2026 at 10:25 PM CEST, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>> Source: wf-recorder
>> Version: 0.6.0-1
>> Tags: ftbfs sid forky
>>
>> wf-recorder FTBFS with ffmpeg 9.0 (available in experimental):
>>
>> FAILED: [code=1] wf-recorder.p/src_frame-writer.cpp.o 
>> c++ -Iwf-recorder.p -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/aarch64-linux-gnu 
>> -I/usr/include/libdrm -I/usr/include/pipewire-0.3 -I/usr/include/spa-0.2 
>> -fdiagnostics-color=always -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS=1 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 
>> -Wall -Winvalid-pch -Wextra -std=c++17 '-DWFRECORDER_VERSION="0.6.0"' 
>> -Wno-deprecated-declarations -g -O2 
>> -ffile-prefix-map=/build/reproducible-path/wf-recorder-0.6.0=. 
>> -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -Wformat 
>> -Werror=format-security -mbranch-protection=standard -Wdate-time 
>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-strict-overflow -D_REENTRANT 
>> -pthread -MD -MQ wf-recorder.p/src_frame-writer.cpp.o -MF 
>> wf-recorder.p/src_frame-writer.cpp.o.d -o 
>> wf-recorder.p/src_frame-writer.cpp.o -c ../src/frame-writer.cpp
>> ../src/frame-writer.cpp: In member function ‘AVPixelFormat 
>> FrameWriter::handle_buffersink_pix_fmt(const AVCodec*)’:
>> ../src/frame-writer.cpp:195:17: error: ‘const AVCodec’ {aka ‘const struct 
>> AVCodec’} has no member named ‘pix_fmts’
>>   195 |     if (!codec->pix_fmts)
>>       |                 ^~~~~~~~
>
> Debian is not alone, updated metadata accordingly.

In the forwarded issue, the following link to a patch was shared:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/wf-recorder/-/blob/d85efa2704043e629f2c47002fea6f98b02ee497/ffmpeg-9.patch

I _suspect_ that upstream may (eventually?) want a different patch like
https://github.com/ammen99/wf-recorder/pull/326
which contains ``#if LIBAVFILTER_VERSION_INT < AV_VERSION_INT(10, 6, 100)``
for full(er) backwards compatibility.
But certainly for the time being it seems good enough?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to