Re: chromium-browser from experimental has included h.264 by default?
severity 580947 serious
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 07:39:12 (CEST), Joey Hess wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Surely not. Chromium ships a *private* copy of ffmpeg, more precisely, a
>> fork of ffmpeg called ffmpeg-mt. Debian does not include ffmpeg-mt
>> because of bug #575600 (tagged wontfix). Moreover, Debian's copy of
>> ffmpeg will always be out-of-date.
>> I wonder why the security team hasn't vetoed this move...
> That seems incorrect, see #580947.
Indeed, when examining the contents of the package
chromium-browser_5.0.375.29\~r46008-3_i386.deb, it turns out that the
package ships the following symlinks:
./usr/lib/chromium-browser/libavcodec.so.52 -> ../libavcodec.so.52
./usr/lib/chromium-browser/libavformat.so.52 -> ../libavformat.so.52
./usr/lib/chromium-browser/libavutil.so.50 -> ../libavutil.so.50
However, the package declares the folowing dependencies:
Depends: [...] libavcodec52, libavformat52, [...]
Note that the dependency on libavutil is missing!
I strongly suspect that the package was built against the internal copy
of ffmpeg, but the maintainers intend the package to be used against the
system ffmpeg copy. This will not work, as chromium was developed and
only tested with ffmpeg-mt, a fork available from here:
that fork tracks ffmpeg trunk, which is not intended to be released with
squeeze, see bug #569727. Perhaps it could work (with or without
adjustments) with the 0.6 version, which currently has a pre-release
version in NEW, but this should really be discussed with chromium
Moreover, the dependencies were surely not generated by dpkg-shlibsdeps,
but manually written. Checking the buildlogs  would clarify this
assumption, but for now, I have no other explanation why the dependency
on libavutil was missed. For this reason, I'm raising the severity to
'Serious', but feel free to adjust this classification.
 http://experimental.ftbfs.de/chromium-browser (unavailable at time
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4