https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304189 --- Comment #34 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #33) > Nice, I think the rich requires are a good solution for this! Or at least > for the rpm build - for the flatpak build, I don't think they are going to > help at all. For firefox flatpak I think the original solution you had going > here would be more helpful as we would only need to use a single extension > point to swap out noopenh264 with openh264 then. Do we have a flatpak extension for openh264, though? I don't mind bringing this back if it would be useful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304189 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202304189%23c34 -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
