[OE-core] [PATCH 16/19] meson: update to 0.52.0

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]

On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 06:51 +0530, Khem Raj wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:56 AM <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 20:49 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> > > I certainly don't mean to ignore those reports, it's just that
> > due to
> > > my ongoing health problems, and having to dedicate most of my
> > energy
> > > to the day job (https://mbition.io/en/home/), I am not currently
> > able
> > > to work on the upstream issues in a timely manner the way I used
> > to
> > > when maintaining core was actually my day job (at Intel).
> > > 
> > > The question of how much effort people who update things in core
> > > should allocate to fixing 'other' layers has been a conflict
> > point
> > > for a long time. I'd prefer to see more aggressive
> > > blacklisting/removal of recipes that no one has an interest in
> > fixing
> > > and updating.
> > 
> > If anything this would be my fault for merging things despite there
> > being concerns raised. I have to admit I'd seen other patches and
> > therefore erroneously thought the issues we mostly resolved.
> > 
> > Should OE-Core block on all issues being resolved before merging?
> > I'm
> > torn on that, I realise there are pros and cons.
> 
> If an issue is there and gets reported after it’s merged I think it’s
> fine to do whatever is needed after the fact however if testing
> master-next from oe-core and reported against it I think this will
> help you in longer run if these master-next issues are looked into
> and blocked on. We should not run Oe-core so fast that other layers
> fall way back behind where they start supporting just releases and
> you have lost free integration testing that other layers would offer
> 
> If there are too many reports then it would be questionable to block
> on it but I don’t think that’s the case 

Feeling suitably responsible for this breakage, I looked into it. The
following two patches, one for meson in OE-Core and the other for dconf
in meta-oe seem to address the problem. I'm not entirely sure they're
correct but they don't actually change the library binary so its
probably fine whilst upstream sorts it out.

If they look ok to you I'll submit them "properly".

Cheers,

Richard



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-dconf-Fix-build-with-meson-0.52.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20191020/3782e9ad/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-meson-Backport-fix-to-assist-meta-oe-breakage.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20191020/3782e9ad/attachment-0001.bin>