On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 12:54 +0200, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > It didn't look [to me] like it would be too bad to me either. > I wasn't sure what the decision would have been (from OE), to > [1]patch-out libopus? or to [2]add libopus? or [3]revert? > But your patch suggests [1] is preferred for now.
My reasoning is that: * libopus is in meta-openembedded, I'm not sure we have a strong case for moving it to core. * I was happy to see us move to a recent more up to date version with the CVE patches dropped so reverting seemed like a less attractive option too. I just wasn't sure if patching out libopus would be possible or not. I therefore had a look at a patch to do it and that shows it does seem to be reasonable. > Did you get a chance to test it? > I can run a test on my system with it. > But it may take me 1-2 days. I've turned it into a proper patch and will test it on the autobuilder. > In the meantime, I was a bit busy with this: > https://github.com/libsndfile/libsndfile/pull/812 > > It kind of seems that libsndfile people are talking about maybe > splitting up their configuration. > Let's see. That will be in a future release anyway. Thanks for discussing it with them. If upstream were willing to accept a patch to enable/disable opus, that would be our much preferred way to handle this! Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#162651): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/162651 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/89367260/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
