Re: Re: About chromium packaging

See the review request: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 Note that I'm leaning towards just making a chromium-freeworld instead of this package. Please see the request and leave your feedback there. On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Jeremy Newton wrote: >

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

I want to do this, but I've been swamped at work recently. If someone beats me to it, feel free. I believe it's as simple as enabling "freeworld" and exclude all the other files (as they would be duplicated from Fedora). I'll look into it tonight, and if I get a working solution, i'll make a

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

Well I'm not skilled enough but I'm surprised that nobody in RPMFusion is interested since it looks to be relatively simple. > 2016-11-12 13:44 GMT+01:00 Jeremy Nouhaud : > Hello, > > According to Tom 'spot' Callaway it's possible to build a > chromium-libs-media-freeworld package to make

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

2016-11-12 13:44 GMT+01:00 Jeremy Nouhaud : > Hello, > > According to Tom 'spot' Callaway it's possible to build a > chromium-libs-media-freeworld package to make available proprietary codecs > to chromium. It will be great if that can be add to RPMFusion ! Feel free to

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

Hello, According to Tom 'spot' Callaway it's possible to build a chromium- libs-media-freeworld package to make available proprietary codecs to chromium. It will be great if that can be add to RPMFusion ! https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/5buozn/how_to_enable_mse_h264_ in_chromium/

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

Hello, Any progress on the codec handling of Chromium ? Thanks !

Re: About chromium packaging

Neal Gompa wrote: > You really only need to recompile libmedia.so, which is where the > codec whitelist exists. Both this and the libffmpeg.so library are > provided by the chromium-libs-media package. I'm not sure if it would > work with the system ffmpeg library without a patch, so you may need

Re: About chromium packaging

2016-08-09 23:35 GMT+02:00 Neal Gompa : > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Hans de Goede wrote: >>> I don't understand why you keep repeating this. I'm sure we can >>> come-up with a patch to make the codec-lists a runtime

Re: About chromium packaging

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: >> I don't understand why you keep repeating this. I'm sure we can >> come-up with a patch to make the codec-lists a runtime configurable >> thing, this is not rocket science. > > If you want to

Re: About chromium packaging

Hans de Goede wrote: > I don't understand why you keep repeating this. I'm sure we can > come-up with a patch to make the codec-lists a runtime configurable > thing, this is not rocket science. If you want to have a try at fixing this, look, e.g., at the member variable

Re: About chromium packaging

Hi, On 07-08-16 14:03, Kevin Kofler wrote: Nicolas Chauvet wrote: libffmpeg.so is not provided anymore in the approved fedora build. So I think there is nothing much to replace, but instead to provide the shared library as a complement. If it's not build as a shared library, then it's

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > libffmpeg.so is not provided anymore in the approved fedora build. > So I think there is nothing much to replace, but instead to provide > the shared library as a complement. If it's not build as a shared library, then it's statically linked and cannot be replaced at all

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

2016-08-07 1:18 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler : > Jeremy Nouhaud wrote: >> According to this comment from Spot it is possible to make, I quote, >> "an rpmfusion addon package to replace the ffmpegsumo.so". > > And that comment is incorrect (or at least poorly formulated and >

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

I don't know why he say that if it's not really possible. Maybe you can talk with him to have some clarifications ?

Re: Re: About chromium packaging

According to this comment from Spot it is possible to make, I quote, "an rpmfusion addon package to replace the ffmpegsumo.so". https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/chromium-52.0.2743.82-2.fc24#co mment-464045

Re: About chromium packaging

Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Okay, good news, so we may have the chromium-ffmpeg under review. It might not be enough to replace the chromium-ffmpeg, you may need a complete chromium-freeworld rebuild with the enable_proprietary_codecs flag on. There is code in Chromium itself which hardcodes the

Re: About chromium packaging

2016-07-19 14:43 GMT+02:00 Andrea Musuruane : > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I've just saw that chromium was banned to RPM Fusion whislist >> http://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist >> >> I haven't see any message from

Re: About chromium packaging

On Ter, 2016-07-19 at 14:42 +0200, Antonio Trande wrote: > chromium is under review on Fedora: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=chromium from https://github.com/UnitedRPMs/packages/issues/13#issuecomment-233225170 Chromium was approved in Fedora Official repositories!!

Re: About chromium packaging

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Hello, > > I've just saw that chromium was banned to RPM Fusion whislist > http://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist > > I haven't see any message from the developers mailing list where this > has been discussed. > To be, the only

Re: About chromium packaging

chromium is under review on Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=chromium On 07/19/2016 02:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Hello, > > I've just saw that chromium was banned to RPM Fusion whislist > http://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist > > I haven't see any message from the developers

About chromium packaging

Hello, I've just saw that chromium was banned to RPM Fusion whislist http://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist I haven't see any message from the developers mailing list where this has been discussed. To be, the only valid reason why a software can be banned from the repo is that it cannot be redistributed.