On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > On 28 November 2012 15:51, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ross Burton <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: >>> Even though the current xserver in oe-core (1.13) doesn't ship these as >>> standalone extensions, older X servers required by binary drives >>> (e.g. meta-intel's 1.9) still install them separately. As the packages >>> didn't >>> exist in xserver-xorg.inc the extensions were not packaged, and X didn't >>> work. >>> >>> Revolve this by restoring the package definitions, and moving the upgrade >>> path >>> dependencies to xserver-xorg_1.13.bb. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.bur...@intel.com> >> >> Wouldn't be better for this packaging be done in meta-intel in this case? >> >> My concern here is to leave unused meta-data; I am not a big fan of it at >> first. > > That's a valid concern, and I almost did that. The fact that binary > drivers locked to specific version of X are so common swayed me into > being nice to them, so they don't need to replicate all of the > packaging themselves.
Well but in this case we would be better to have 1.9 in oe-core, in this case. I understand your point and I partially agree with it (I suffer of same pain) but it doesn't seem right to keep this code. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
