<div dir="ltr">Incoming reordered patches.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Burton, Ross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com" target="_blank">ross.burton@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 21 December 2012 12:38, Damian, Alexandru <<a href="mailto:alexandru.damian@intel.com">alexandru.damian@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Actually, I'm thinking like this:<br>
><br>
> - wayland, weston - initial commits<br>
> - mesa-dri - only patches.<br>
><br>
> It makes sense in my mind to add first the commits and then enable the<br>
> recipe change,<br>
> especially when it's not gonna work by default anyway (since mesa-git isn't<br>
> enabled).<br>
<br>
</div>At patch 2/3 you have a weston package that doesn't build. Reodering<br>
to wayland/mesa/weston means you:<br>
<br>
- add wayland protocol<br>
- enable wayland in mesa<br>
- add weston<br>
<br>
It's a logical series of patches, the categorisation of patches vs new<br>
recipes is irrelevant.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Ross<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited<br>
Registered No. 1134945 (England)<br>
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ<br>
VAT No: 860 2173 47<br>
<br>
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for<br>
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution<br>
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended<br>
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>