Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho <caio.olive...@intel.com> writes: > Raphael, you can even remove the dependency with Crosswalk > build. t-e-c is pretty much independent from Crosswalk, except for the > Crosswalk Extension C API, that we don't plan to change anytime soon.
The dependency existed because I thought t-e-c dependend on crosswalk, but now that you mention it we've made both independent from each other a while ago, so yes, it's totally possible to make t-e-c independent from crosswalk :-) > What should be useful for t-e-c is to not build if there wasn't a new > change, I'm not sure whether this was implemented in the infra or > not. Because is not everyday there are new stuff in t-e-c. The infrastructure is almost all there (it is already there for the canaries and betas), it can certainly be done. > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:29:27AM -0700, Ketrenos, James P wrote: >> Given that Canary builds are intended as a development aide, publication of >> a binary for one platform should not be hinged on whether the Canary >> successfully builds for all platforms. > > Agreed. Just to confirm: you don't mean we're supposed to have a new android crosswalk canary if the tizen canary build (excluding t-e-c) fails (or vice-versa), right? >> In addition, I would prefer we don't start tying the publication of the >> Tizen Crosswalk binary to the build of an optional extension module, unless >> t-e-c is rolled in as part of a single crosswalk RPM for Tizen. > > Agreed, and I think Raphael agrees too. He suggested the dependency > the other way round, only build t-e-c if Crosswalk is OK, and for now, > not even this is needed. Fine. _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
