Hi Jacobo, Khem, I'm traveling, so not able to access my build system for a few more days. I didn't check Julien's patch yet, so as long as it does at least what mine does, it should be OK for me. I'm open to whatever solution, whether I regenerate a patch or Jacobo integrates it in his. One thing I will do, though, is test the resulting recipe on my build platform, to see if it's still working in my configuration.
Cheers, Herve > On 31 Jan 2017, at 03:04, Jacobo Aragunde Pérez <jaragu...@igalia.com> wrote: > >> On 30/01/17 19:36, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Jacobo Aragunde Pérez >> <jaragu...@igalia.com> wrote: >>> Hi Khem Raj, >>> >>> sorry, I didn't understand your response. Do you prefer I send a new >>> version of the rebase patch, including Herve's fix? In that case, Herve, >>> I think I could use jbriance's upstream patch so you don't need to >>> generate it, if you all agree. I'd use the one that didn't get merged >>> [1], because we need the .gyp part too. >>> >>> Future rebases will require changes to use GN, at that point we should >>> probably get rid of this custom patch. That's a problem for another day, >>> though :) >> >> I was thinking both of Herve and you will send your patches >> independently after rework but if you can integrate both that would be >> wonderful. >> > > I definitely can, it's easy enough by picking Julien's diff from > Chromium code review. I've updated my patch and just triggered a build > to make sure everything is in place, it will compile overnight. I just > don't want to "steal" Herve's idea, so I'll wait for his blessing :) > > Best, > -- > Jacobo Aragunde > Software Engineer at Igalia > >>> >>> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2239833003/#ps1 >>> >>> Thank you all, >>> -- >>> Jacobo Aragunde >>> Software Engineer at Igalia >>> >>> >>>> On 29/01/17 02:13, Khem Raj wrote: >>>> Hi Herve >>>> >>>> Yes please send a V2 with suggested changes. >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Herve Jourdain <herve.jourd...@neuf.fr> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Khem, >>>>> >>>>> Shall I generate a proper patch with the proper header? Or should Jacobo >>>>> add that to his patch? >>>>> I'm not even sure the patch is accepted on master yet. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Herve >>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Jan 2017, at 01:51, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/27/17 6:06 AM, Julien Brianceau (jbriance) wrote: >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org >>>>>>>> [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>>>> Khem Raj >>>>>>>> Sent: vendredi 27 janvier 2017 02:47 >>>>>>>> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-browser][PATCH v2] chromium-wayland: update to >>>>>>>> 53.0.2785.14 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/25/17 9:50 PM, Herve Jourdain wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Jacob, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've been able to compile chromium-wayland 53.0.2785.14 on >>>>>>>> RaspberryPi, with Wayland only (no X11), BUT I had to add an additional >>>>>>>> patch for it to work, or else I get an error in >>>>>>>> ui/events/keycodes/keyboard_code_conversion_xkb.cc. >>>>>>>>> I'm using VC4, which has a DRM/KMS interface (it seems that DRM >>>>>>>> interface is required by ozone-wayland), but this patch seems to not be >>>>>>>> related to RaspberryPi itself. >>>>>>>>> Basically, it seems that USE_XKBCOMMON is not defined when compiling >>>>>>>> keycodes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it something that you saw as well? Or do you have a different >>>>>>>> setting/experience? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just for reference, here is the patch I need (right now, I'm >>>>>>>> triggering it from meta-raspberrypi, but I believe it may be needed in >>>>>>>> meta-browser). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- a/ui/events/keycodes/events_keycodes.gyp 2017-01-23 >>>>>>>> 19:12:01.767271256 +0800 >>>>>>>>> +++ b/ui/events/keycodes/events_keycodes.gyp 2017-01-23 >>>>>>>> 19:12:11.503048216 +0800 >>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ >>>>>>>>> 'scoped_xkb.h', >>>>>>>>> 'xkb_keysym.h', >>>>>>>>> ], >>>>>>>>> + 'defines': [ >>>>>>>>> + 'USE_XKBCOMMON', >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This seems fine to me. It should also be proposed upstream as well I >>>>>>>> think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the record, I've already tried to upstream a similar change (see >>>>>>> Patch Set 1 of review https://codereview.chromium.org/2239833003/), but >>>>>>> only the GN part has been accepted as gyp support has been removed in >>>>>>> Chromium 54. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thats we should make a note of this in patch header. We will have to >>>>>> remove it or replace it as well when we upgrade chromium. >>>>>>> Julien >>>>>>> > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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