Remove use_system_ffmpeg-related logic from media and other mainline gyp files.

Remove use_system_ffmpeg-related logic from media and other mainline gyp files.

BUG=226860
R=fischman@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=198746

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-05-05 03:41:53]

Can you also remove the vestiges of USE_SYSTEM_FFMPEG from non-unbundle files?

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp
File build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.g...
build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp:18: '--on-failure
-DCHROMIUM_OMIT_AV_CODEC_ID_OPUS=1)',
What will make use of this define once this CL lands?
(ditto for others below)

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-06 23:48:56]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp
File build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.g...
build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp:18: '--on-failure
-DCHROMIUM_OMIT_AV_CODEC_ID_OPUS=1)',
On 2013/05/05 03:41:53, Ami Fischman wrote:
> What will make use of this define once this CL lands?
> (ditto for others below)

This will need a custom distro patch. Still, IMHO what can be shared should be
shared, making the patch smaller.

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-05-06 23:55:04]

LGTM++

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp
File build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.g...
build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp:18: '--on-failure
-DCHROMIUM_OMIT_AV_CODEC_ID_OPUS=1)',
On 2013/05/06 23:48:56, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> On 2013/05/05 03:41:53, Ami Fischman wrote:
> > What will make use of this define once this CL lands?
> > (ditto for others below)
> 
> This will need a custom distro patch. Still, IMHO what can be shared should be
> shared, making the patch smaller.

Isn't each distro going to need the same exact patch b/c they'll be patching the
same chromium source to do the same thing?
(I'm not complaining, just curious)

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-07 16:59:04]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r198746 (presubmit successful).

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-05-07 17:14:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp
File build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.g...
build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp:18: '--on-failure
-DCHROMIUM_OMIT_AV_CODEC_ID_OPUS=1)',
On 2013/05/06 23:55:04, Ami Fischman wrote:
> Isn't each distro going to need the same exact patch b/c they'll be patching
the
> same chromium source to do the same thing?
> (I'm not complaining, just curious)

Good question.

First, custom patching is really something to be avoided. You can see in various
distro guidelines, e.g.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects that all
changes that can be sent upstream should be - and at least this gyp part can
live upstream.

Then, most distro packagers are not familiar with gyp and our build system. C++
is something we can reasonably expect them to know however. When custom patching
it's valuable to understand the patch one's applying instead of doing sort of
cargo cult - it works for distro X so I'm taking it even though I have no idea
what's going on (applying patches without full understanding reminds me of
Debian PRNG debacle).

And then somewhat minor reason, but keeping the custom patch smaller is also of
value.

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-05-07 17:16:54]

My point was that the ensuing patches (which will act on the defines) for
debian and for gentoo and for redhat and for ... are all going to be the
exact same thing, so I was surprised you didn't include that somewhere
under unbundle as well.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:14 AM, <phajdan.jr@chromium.org> wrote:

>
> https://codereview.chromium.**org/14659007/diff/1/build/**
>
linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp<https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp>
> File build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.**gyp (right):
>
> https://codereview.chromium.**org/14659007/diff/1/build/**
>
linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp#**newcode18<https://codereview.chromium.org/14659007/diff/1/build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.gyp#newcode18>
> build/linux/unbundle/ffmpeg.**gyp:18: '--on-failure
> -DCHROMIUM_OMIT_AV_CODEC_ID_**OPUS=1)',
> On 2013/05/06 23:55:04, Ami Fischman wrote:
>
>> Isn't each distro going to need the same exact patch b/c they'll be
>>
> patching the
>
>> same chromium source to do the same thing?
>> (I'm not complaining, just curious)
>>
>
> Good question.
>
> First, custom patching is really something to be avoided. You can see in
> various distro guidelines, e.g.
>
https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Staying_close_to_**upstream_projects<https:/...
> all changes that can be sent upstream should be - and at least this gyp
> part can live upstream.
>
> Then, most distro packagers are not familiar with gyp and our build
> system. C++ is something we can reasonably expect them to know however.
> When custom patching it's valuable to understand the patch one's
> applying instead of doing sort of cargo cult - it works for distro X so
> I'm taking it even though I have no idea what's going on (applying
> patches without full understanding reminds me of Debian PRNG debacle).
>
> And then somewhat minor reason, but keeping the custom patch smaller is
> also of value.
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/14659007/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>