On Apr 29, 2015 10:37 AM, "Carlos Rafael Giani" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> The latest one (V8) seems good to me. I was initially skeptical about the
heavy chromium.inc refactoring, but these days we don't have multiple
chromium versions in meta-browser, so it is okay.
> The shared object versioning bandaid wasn't done by me, I modified other
parts, but I agree with the patch. The way it is done now is cleaner.
> Have you come across a case where there were codec package conflicts?
>

Not yet but this makes it future proof. Since I know there are packages
with same .so
>
>
> Am 2015-04-27 um 23:40 schrieb Otavio Salvador:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Andre McCurdy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Looks like some regressions may have crept back relative previous
>>>> versions of the patch?
>>>>
>>>>   - dubious indent in do_install()
>>>>   - .pak files being installed as executables
>>>>   - dev-so INSANE_SKIP shouldn't be requied
>>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I will send a followup to fix it
incrementally.
>>
>> Please wait for Carlos comments and send a new pathc revision. This is
>> not yet merged so fixes are still possible.
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Reply via email to