What about firefox?

Posted Dec 2, 2009 5:43 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
Parent article: Callaway: Chromium: Why it isn't in Fedora yet as a proper package

Firefox also duplicates a multitude of packages, for example:

[gmaxwell@sonolumen xulrunner-1.9.1]$ strings libxul.so | grep -i libTheora
Xiph.Org libTheora I 20081020 3 2 1

(pretty sad too, because the greatly performance enhanced libtheora 1.1 was a headline feature for Fedora 12, but probably the now most common user of the library has its own copy of libtheora 1.0)

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 2, 2009 7:51 UTC (Wed) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] (5 responses)

I don't think the 1.0-decoder has any problems decoding superior 1.1-encoded material. Though indeed there may have been decoding performance improvements as well, but I think the main improvement was that 1.1 makes more sensible data which also decodes better (and with better quality).

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 2, 2009 15:16 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (4 responses)

Right. The 1.0 decoder decodes everything, visually identical ouput too. But the 1.1 decoder is also considerably faster this is pretty relevant because the HTML5 video model forces software yuv->rgb conversion that takes a lot of CPU. Because of that 1.0 vs 1.1 is the difference between smooth HD playback and not on a fair number of computers. ::shrugs:: I mostly mentioned the difference so that no one would say 'it doesn't matter'.

It does, but the point is that Firefox in Fedora ships with duplicated libraries (and has had security bugfixing desync in libvorbis as a result, with Mozilla shipping with fixes ahead of the rest of Fedora).

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 2, 2009 17:02 UTC (Wed) by spot (guest, #15640) [Link] (3 responses)

For what it's worth, I wasn't aware of this until you pointed it out. Do you know if there is an open bug here? I'm guessing that it is reasonably straightforward to fix Firefox to use the system libtheora. (I say that without having looked at all at the relevant code, so I very well could be wrong.)

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 3, 2009 9:28 UTC (Thu) by glandium (guest, #46059) [Link] (2 responses)

The problem is that they have added APIs in liboggz and liboggplay, used to better seek in ogg streams, avoiding the ugly rendering when seeking between 2 key frames. They also have a bunch of non upstreamed fixes.

I sent a list of the patches applied on the Firefox 3.5 branch to the relevant persons, and hopefully the patches will be applied upstream.

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 3, 2009 10:37 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

More disturbing is that they patched libpng with APIs that were rejected upstream and subsequently decided that the right thing to do was to carry along their own fork forever... and have you seen how *many* libpng security-fix releases there have been in the last few years? Are you sure FF got all of them? I'm not. And exploits via hostile PNGs that buffer-overrun image-handling libraries have been reported (though admittedly only on Windows), so this is not academic.

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 3, 2009 15:45 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]

I specifically mentioned libtheora because I know there aren't any non-upstreamed fixes.

What about firefox?

Posted Dec 2, 2009 11:23 UTC (Wed) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Added this to Debian's embedded-code-copies file, thanks.