Quoting Sandro Knauß (2017-07-01 21:34:47) >> I am quite in favor of getting rid of code copies, but using on a >> private library sounds like abuse which should be solved by either >> rewriting/patching the project to only use public headers, or >> convince the libsrtp project to make those private headers public. > > Well qtwebengine is a embeded browser (chromium) and needs the private > headers to build webrtc. Keep in mind also chromium is normally > affected by issues, that are stopping qtwebengine to use system > packages (see as example #812091). > > We had no issue to use system libsrtp-dev, because this had shipped > the private header. > > I know shipping private header stuff is not ideal. But I prefer no > copies and one more transition if private stuff changes. Sorry but I > have nor real indeep knowlege, why webrtc needs the private stuff. I > hope the surroundings are enough to start the discussion with > upstream. > > Btw. upstream(qt) tells actually that qtwebengine using an non > released version of libsrtp > (https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-60970) > >> I can forward this issue to the upstream developers of libsrtp, but >> will then need some more substantial arguments why headers >> deliberately made private should be made public. Even better if you >> get in touch with upstream directly, as you can no doubt explain your >> needs better than me acting as proxy. > > As I don't know libsrtp it may be better if you start the discussion. > I can join afterwards. Otherwise you should discribe me, how to reach > them properly.
Sorry, but with that (lack of) reasoning for needing headers which upstream has chosen to treat as private, I will not act as proxy. Upstream preferred form of contact can be found in the Debian copyright file: https://github.com/cisco/libsrtp/issues - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
