Something to take seriously.

Discuss various technical topics not related to Mozilla.
User avatar
Grumpus
Posts: 13232
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Something to take seriously.

Post by Grumpus »

Doesn't matter what you say, it's wrong for a toaster to walk around the house and talk to you
User avatar
therube
Posts: 21685
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by therube »

/firefox/releases/48.0/...-EME-free
(Though the issue is likely more involved then "just that".)
Fire 750, bring back 250.
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
User avatar
WaltS48
Posts: 5141
Joined: May 7th, 2010, 9:38 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by WaltS48 »

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: 1504
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by barbaz »

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

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Drumbrake »

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #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?
User avatar
therube
Posts: 21685
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by therube »

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
Fire 750, bring back 250.
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
User avatar
Grumpus
Posts: 13232
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Grumpus »

In Mint FF version 47 :
browser.eme.ui.enabled;false default
media.eme.apiVisible;true defailt
media.eme.enabled;true default
Doesn't matter what you say, it's wrong for a toaster to walk around the house and talk to you
Gusar
Posts: 205
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Gusar »

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: 1504
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by barbaz »

But AFAIK they don't use --disable-eme for the "EME-free" builds.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1144903
Gusar
Posts: 205
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Gusar »

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:
User avatar
therube
Posts: 21685
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by therube »

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)?
Fire 750, bring back 250.
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
User avatar
Grumpus
Posts: 13232
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Grumpus »

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.
Doesn't matter what you say, it's wrong for a toaster to walk around the house and talk to you
Gusar
Posts: 205
Joined: March 17th, 2006, 1:52 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Gusar »

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: 1504
Joined: October 1st, 2014, 3:25 pm

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by barbaz »

Last I checked, SeaMonkey has EME support but only for ClearKey which is just a decryption plugin, no DRM.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14138201

(I self-build with --disable-eme anyway.)
User avatar
Grumpus
Posts: 13232
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 4:23 am
Location: ... Da' Swamp

Re: Something to take seriously.

Post by Grumpus »

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..
Doesn't matter what you say, it's wrong for a toaster to walk around the house and talk to you
Post Reply