https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738290 --- Comment #18 from Javier Martinez Canillas <fmartine@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #17) > > I wonder how we should proceed, if having a downstream patch to add a .so > > name > > versioning as suggested in Comment #3 (and deal with any fallout caused by > > the > > API/ABI to change before they cut a versioned release) or just wait until > > they > > do that... > > The problem we have with patching it downstream if we end up with a > conflicting versioning, or if we have to patch any app/library that may > currently support libcamera to support the versioned libraries. > > I suppose the real question is what users outside of the libcamera included > utilities do we currently have to utilise libcamera? AKA what currently has > support for it? The only user I know about (because the GStreamer element is currently part of libcamera as well) is PipeWire (when built with -Dlibcamera=true): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/tree/master/spa/plugins/libcamera Since having libcamera is the only way to support the camera in some devices (i.e: rpi4), I think that I'm leaning towards carry a downstream patch in the meantime. I'm happy to take over this pkg and also coordinate with Wim for the PipeWire bits. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
