Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-06 Thread Trevor Woerner
On Wed 2020-02-05 @ 06:02:36 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Wed 2020-02-05 @ 10:07:07 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > Also was this sent with -M? -M2 works better, I'll use that for v2 -- ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list

Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-05 Thread Trevor Woerner
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:32 PM Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Trevor Woerner wrote: > > > > On Wed 2020-02-05 @ 10:07:07 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > Thanks, > > > > > > would you mind undoing: > > > >

Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-05 Thread Khem Raj
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 PM Trevor Woerner wrote: > > On Wed 2020-02-05 @ 10:07:07 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > Thanks, > > > > would you mind undoing: > > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=0c182e58775966699c303c1e2561c273197bf445 > > in the same commit? > > Sure, no

Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-05 Thread Trevor Woerner
On Wed 2020-02-05 @ 10:07:07 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > Thanks, > > would you mind undoing: > http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=0c182e58775966699c303c1e2561c273197bf445 > in the same commit? Sure, no problem. v2 on the way > Also was this sent with -M? haha, I know

Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-05 Thread Martin Jansa
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 03:30:53PM -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote: > Remove mpv from the PNBLACKLIST by updating to the latest release and using a > newer, python3-aware waf for building (copied from glmark2). > > The name of the license file changed, but the licence of the software itself > did

Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] mpv: 0.26.0 -> 0.32.0

2020-02-05 Thread Andreas Müller
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:31 PM Trevor Woerner wrote: > > Remove mpv from the PNBLACKLIST by updating to the latest release and using a > newer, python3-aware waf for building (copied from glmark2). > > The name of the license file changed, but the licence of the software itself > did not. > >