Hi All, For what it's worth, I built this chromium62 for the nitrogen6x and I'm getting Alignment traps when loading webpages.
Are there any obvious flags or compile options I'm missing here? I haven't tied debugging into this yet, which is my next step here. Just wanted to know if I was missing something obvious. Thanks! -Ian Coolidge On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Trevor Woerner <[email protected]> wrote: > Raphael, > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa > <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are 60 new commits in my "chromium62" branch > > This work is utterly *brilliant*! BRAVO! Thanks so much for sticking with > it. > > > Possibly controversial issues: > > - The ozone-wayland recipe has been removed (this is actually commit > > #1). The ozone-wayland project Intel used to maintain has not been > > maintained in a very long time, and it is impossible to just get it to > > work with Chromium 62. I'd also rather not keep Chromium 53 around > > just because of it due to A) increased maintenance costs 2) we'd be > > shipping an ancient Chromium release with tons of security issues. > > No issues from me. Originally there was only one recipe that included > both wayland and x11 support together. I had proposed, then done the > work, to separate them out into two recipes because keeping them in > sync wasn't working. If nobody is keeping ozone-wayland working, it > doesn't work, and/or it's not being worked on upstream, then I have no > issues with it being removed. Just to be clear: if somebody finds it > useful and wants to support it, I'd be happy to see it come back. But > at this point it appears to be dead and I don't think it's worth > blacklisting. > > > - musl support is currently broken. I've sent a few patches upstream > > lately and added a few musl-related changes to the Chromium 62 recipe, > > but getting the code to build requires a lot of time and > > determination, and if we don't have someone actively working with > > upstream it's just going to be an uphill battle that I am not willing > > to take upon myself. > > I'll have to defer to Khem on this one. As I've said before, I > strongly don't believe meta-browser (or any other layer other than > meta-musl) is the right place for musl support. Musl support should be > in meta-musl and not spread throughout the ecosystem for everyone else > to worry about. But I don't get the feeling that I "won" this > discussion in the past... ;-) > > > - The 'ignore-lost-context' PACKAGECONFIG knob was removed. The patch > > it required no longer applies cleanly, its context refers a 5-year-old > > discussion and it is not clear if it is still necessary at all. > > This seems fine to me. If anyone still wants to use the > --gpu-no-context-lost cmdline argument (or any other cmdline argument, > for that matter) without the patch, they can simply add it to the > chromium-wrapper. > > > - In the future, I'd like to revisit the other PACKAGECONFIG knobs as > > well. In particular, it is not clear to me if 'impl-side-painting' and > > 'use-egl' are still needed at all, > > Sounds good. > > > and I'd like to drop > > 'component-build' to simplify the recipe and prevent anyone from using > > this option in production. > > Yes! And if you wanted to remove DEBUG_BUILD too, I'd be okay with > that as well. I'm confused as to the status of DEBUG_BUILD, it seems > to be removed, but you're setting debug flags? > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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
