ping. Can this now be merged ?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2015 10:37 AM, "Carlos Rafael Giani" <d...@pseudoterminal.org> > 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 <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> 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 >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel