Firefox, Codecs and 9.5

If anyone has upgraded/installed 9.5 and wants to use the extra codecs with Firefox as described in Codecs / Video Playback in Firefox - then you probably got an error about requiring libdav1d.so.6 and no suitable package being able to provide that

This is because the upgraded (EPEL) libdav1d package now provides libdav1d.so.7 - which means waiting until rpmfusion update their packages to work with 9.5

I have worked/hacked around this (for now) by creating a new RPM that provides libdav1d.so.6 by simply extracting the files from the 9.4 binary RPM and re-packaging them - if anyone is interested, this is the RPM spec file I used:

Name:           libdav1d690
Version:        1.2.1
Release:        1.compat
Summary:        AV1 cross-platform Decoder
License:        BSD
URL:            https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav1d
Source0:        https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/epel/9.4/Everything/%{_arch}/Packages/l/libdav1d-1.2.1-1.el9.%{_arch}.rpm
BuildRequires:  rpm, cpio

%description
Library files for %{name}, the AV1 cross-platform Decoder.

%prep
# nothing to prep

%build
# nothing to build - our 'source' is pre-built

%install
rpm2cpio %{SOURCE0} | cpio -idm -D %{buildroot} .%{_libdir}\*

%files
%{_libdir}/libdav1d.so.6*

%changelog
* Fri Nov 22 2024 James Pearson <> - 1.2.1-1
- Compatibility package of libdav1d from el9.4 for el9.5+

Once the RPM has been built with rpmbuild and installed, the various codec RPMS from the rpmfusion repo can be installed

Couldn’t you just make a link to that file called libdav1d.so.6 ? I’ve done this for other similar situations. Since I’ve upgraded I can test this out later.

Actually I can’t test because I don’t want to install all the repo’s and required rpm’s on my server. So some other curious soul will have to test this.

Creating a symlink to the newer shared library may allow an application that uses the older shared library to work, but it won’t help rpm/dnf with what it requires i.e. any install of the rpmfusion packages/codecs RPMS will fail as rpm knows of nothing that provides the older shared library

OK, I see where my work around wouldn’t help with other rpm’s dependency issue. So it would help to note in your revised spec file what you actually changed. I know it may be apparent once you download and extract the spec file.