MozillaZine

Something to take seriously.

Discuss various technical topics not related to Mozilla.
Grumpus

User avatar
 
Posts: 11522
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted July 16th, 2016, 2:07 pm


therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 17522
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted August 2nd, 2016, 12:39 pm

/firefox/releases/48.0/...-EME-free
(Though the issue is likely more involved then "just that".)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

WaltS48

User avatar
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: May 7th, 2010, 9:38 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post Posted August 2nd, 2016, 7:31 pm

Been EME-free versions since 38.0.

Directory Listing: /pub/firefox/releases/38.0/
Linux Desktop - AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 455 3.3GHz | 8.0GB RAM | GeForce GT 630
Windows Notebook - AMD A8 7410 2.2GHz | 6.0GB RAM | AMD Radeon R5

barbaz
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Post Posted August 2nd, 2016, 7:53 pm

My understanding is that those builds aren't "EME-free", they just have EME turned off by default. Which is a good step, because that should disable downloading CDMs by default.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!

Drumbrake

User avatar
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: February 14th, 2011, 2:34 am

Post Posted August 3rd, 2016, 8:18 am

viewtopic.php?p=14662745#p14662745

Gusar wrote:Check about:buildconfig in the regular and the eme-free versions, the latter likely has --disable-eme among the options while the former doesn't.


Thinking of it, does that mean that the related code is still there (but disabled), or does --disable-eme actually mean that Firefox has been compiled without the EME-related code?

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 17522
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted August 3rd, 2016, 9:17 am

Don't know what to make of it?
I've only ever downloaded the EME-free versions.
From FF 48 & the only mention of eme, "--enable-eme=adobe,widevine"?
'MOZILLABUILD=C:\mozilla-build' --enable-js-shell --enable-eme=adobe,widevine --enable-jemalloc --enable-crashreporter --enable-official-branding --enable-release --enable-require-all-d3dc-versions --enable-rust --enable-update-channel=release --enable-update-packaging --enable-verify-mar --enable-warnings-as-errors --with-google-api-keyfile=/c/builds/gapi.data --with-google-oauth-api-keyfile=/c/builds/google-oauth-api.key --with-mozilla-api-keyfile=/c/builds/mozilla-desktop-geoloc-api.key
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Grumpus

User avatar
 
Posts: 11522
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted August 3rd, 2016, 11:32 am

In Mint FF version 47 :
browser.eme.ui.enabled;false default
media.eme.apiVisible;true defailt
media.eme.enabled;true default

Gusar
 
Posts: 195
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 3:28 am

Drumbrake wrote:Thinking of it, does that mean that the related code is still there (but disabled), or does --disable-eme actually mean that Firefox has been compiled without the EME-related code?

The latter. The directories dom/media/eme/ and dom/media/platforms/agnostic/eme/ in the Firefox source code are not compiled when --disable-eme is specified. Code elsewhere in dom/media/ referring to EME is also not compiled.

barbaz
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 9:11 am

But AFAIK they don't use --disable-eme for the "EME-free" builds.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1144903
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!

Gusar
 
Posts: 195
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 12:20 pm

barbaz wrote:But AFAIK they don't use --disable-eme for the "EME-free" builds.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1144903

Wow... I'm deciding whether I should LOL, *facepalm* or :roll:

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 17522
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm

So what, the backend is still there, only it should be ineffectual in EME-free.

And what, in our case, we're [SeaMonkey] actually compiling the builds with the --disable-eme flag (or at least, that is the intent)?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

Grumpus

User avatar
 
Posts: 11522
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 1:38 pm

Could be there's some preliminary industry updating going on.
libdrm2 is being updated in Ubuntu and Linux Mint for the various display packages, intel, nuance, etc.

Gusar
 
Posts: 195
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 2:00 pm

therube wrote:only it should be ineffectual in EME-free.

It's actually fully functional. It's just that no CDMs (content decryption modules) will be downloaded, and of course websites will be told that EME isn't there. Unless you go to about:config and flip on media.eme.enabled, then even the "EME-free" build should actually do EME.

About Seamonkey, I downloaded the latest Linux nightly and checked about:buildconfig, no --disable-eme there. However, media.eme.enabled is set to false, and even if I flip that to true html5test.com says no DRM support. So no clue what the Seamonkey folks are doing.

barbaz
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Post Posted August 4th, 2016, 2:14 pm

Last I checked, SeaMonkey has EME support but only for ClearKey which is just a decryption plugin, no DRM.
viewtopic.php?p=14138201#p14138201

(I self-build with --disable-eme anyway.)
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!

Grumpus

User avatar
 
Posts: 11522
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Post Posted August 5th, 2016, 7:22 am

Wondering how effective or accurate the html5test is?
Tried it with the default setting posted above and got a 396 out of 555.
Changed the settings to all false, closed FF and reopened tested and got the same result.
Changed the settings to all enabled closed Firefox and reopened, same result.
There must be something else needed to effect a change in the test or the settings don't have an effect at present.

Identifies Linux Mint as Ubuntu and FF as 47, which is probably OK but allows for a correction, doesn't keep a record as it returned to Ubuntu for each test..

Return to MozillaZine Tech


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron