On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 16, 2016, at 3:43 AM, Otavio Salvador >> <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Jussi Kukkonen >> <jussi.kukko...@intel.com> wrote: >>> On 13 May 2016 at 23:15, Otavio Salvador >>> <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Jussi Kukkonen >>>> <jussi.kukko...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>> Support for multiple new protocols, many new features: >>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2016-February/027039.html >>>>> >>>>> Weston now depends on wayland-protocols (which is protocol >>>>> collection split off from weston). >>>>> >>>>> Remove upstreamed patches, add a patch to fix the wayland-protocols >>>>> path used during build. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <jussi.kukko...@intel.com> >>>> >>>> I am working on rework the weston recipes and it seems Weston 1.11 is >>>> close of release. I think instead of adding 1.10 we could use 1.10.91 >>>> and upgrade it to 1.11.0 when it is out (end of May). This avoids >>>> another cycle of rebase of patches during 2.2 development cycle. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> I don't have a burning need to get 1.10 in at all (I almost didn't >>> send these in the first place because of 1.11 being just two weeks >>> away). If you'd rather avoid the churn I'm fine with doing other >>> things and looking at this again after 1.11 release. I'm also totally >>> happy to keep my paws off this completely if your rework is going to >>> include the 1.9 -> 1.11 upgrade in it. >>> >>> Here's my current 1.10 branch in case it's useful (the important >>> change is the WAYLAND_PROTOCOLS_SYSROOT_DIR hack to get multilib >>> working with allarch wayland-protocols): >>> git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib jku/wayland-1.10 >>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jku/wayland-1.10 >>> >>> Just to be clear: Based on this discussion I don't currently plan to >>> send a V2 to list unless there's demand for it. >> >> As I said, I would work on 1.10.91 as it is close of 1.11 and easy the >> upgrade. But all my patches are based on 1.10 now so it is fine with >> me as well so please send the v2. > > If 1.11 is around the corner then why not work on 1.11 ( pre-release ) itself
This was my proposal; to get the 1.10.91 merged. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
