On 08/30/2016 07:59 AM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
On 08/29/2016 07:11 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 29 August 2016 at 05:37, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote:
On 08/26/2016 03:58 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 26 August 2016 at 08:50, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com>
wrote:
Reviewed-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com>
What happened with my suggestion about getting things fixed as opposed
to adding tape over things, namely these thread [1] ?
Can someone please look into that one instead or give me some tips how
I can get things into AOSP ? Last time I've looked AOSP had longer and
more convoluted procedures than anything in the Linux graphics stack.
I'm not sure when this kind of 'big change' would happen, would be
nice to
have a working solution now and then discuss better solution in peace?
I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt anyone had the time/chance/will to
pursue the proposed solution. As such, pushing this 'hack' will not
increase the insensitive/chances of resolving this properly.
(trying to reduce the amount of patches that have to be applied to get
things working/built)
Ack and thank you for that. I believe the overall goal should be to
resolve things in a 'good enough for upstreaming' method, rather than
just pushing the first solution that comes to mind. Similar to how it
was done with the other CrOS inspired patches.
I could try to push .pc files in to those projects but I'm not sure how
that should work. Should those projects then install the .pc files
somewhere during Android build or would we mess with the PKG_CONFIG_PATH
*sigh* I mean during Chromium build ..
to be able to find them?
// Tapani
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
