From owner-freebsd-chromium@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 11:10:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31FBACA8; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E155E2B90; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 0x20.net (0x20.net [IPv6:2001:aa8:fffb:1::2]) (Authenticated sender: lala) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D69796A6032; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:10:04 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:10:04 +0200 From: Lars Engels To: CeDeROM Subject: Re: Version 35.0.1916.114 (270117) breaks html5 video In-Reply-To: References: <20140603183120.GF1451@e-new.0x20.net> <20140628194423.GM53663@e-new.0x20.net> <53B3D69A.1090505@fsfe.org> <20140706141346.GY53663@e-new.0x20.net> <53BA7EDF.8080708@fsfe.org> <53C3B26A.6000106@fsfe.org> Message-ID: <54014607b77866abbf64999cae3c5e4d@mail.0x20.net> X-Sender: lars.engels@0x20.net User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7 Cc: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org, owner-freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Chromium issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:10:08 -0000 Am 2014-07-14 12:54, schrieb CeDeROM: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Hannes wrote: >> I have tried rebuilding, all to no avail. If video is broken, can we >> please revert to an older version? I think video is crucial to most >> users and whatever new features 35 might have, most people would >> rather >> have video I think! > > Agree :-) May be marked as broken..? What new is added with this > release that may sacrifice the valid multimedia? I personally use > Chrome because H264 support, only for that :-) > > Best regards :-) > Tomek I'd rather have a non-working video part than suffer from non-patched security holes. After all, there's still a pkg install firefox to watch videos.