[oe] [meta-browser] CFT: Chromium 62 in meta-browser

[Trevor Woerner]

Raphael,

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa
<raphael.kubo.da.costa at intel.com> wrote:
> There are 60 new commits in my "chromium62" branch

This work is utterly *brilliant*! BRAVO! Thanks so much for sticking with it.

> Possibly controversial issues:
> - The ozone-wayland recipe has been removed (this is actually commit
>   #1). The ozone-wayland project Intel used to maintain has not been
>   maintained in a very long time, and it is impossible to just get it to
>   work with Chromium 62. I'd also rather not keep Chromium 53 around
>   just because of it due to A) increased maintenance costs 2) we'd be
>   shipping an ancient Chromium release with tons of security issues.

No issues from me. Originally there was only one recipe that included
both wayland and x11 support together. I had proposed, then done the
work, to separate them out into two recipes because keeping them in
sync wasn't working. If nobody is keeping ozone-wayland working, it
doesn't work, and/or it's not being worked on upstream, then I have no
issues with it being removed. Just to be clear: if somebody finds it
useful and wants to support it, I'd be happy to see it come back. But
at this point it appears to be dead and I don't think it's worth
blacklisting.

> - musl support is currently broken. I've sent a few patches upstream
>   lately and added a few musl-related changes to the Chromium 62 recipe,
>   but getting the code to build requires a lot of time and
>   determination, and if we don't have someone actively working with
>   upstream it's just going to be an uphill battle that I am not willing
>   to take upon myself.

I'll have to defer to Khem on this one. As I've said before, I
strongly don't believe meta-browser (or any other layer other than
meta-musl) is the right place for musl support. Musl support should be
in meta-musl and not spread throughout the ecosystem for everyone else
to worry about. But I don't get the feeling that I "won" this
discussion in the past... ;-)

> - The 'ignore-lost-context' PACKAGECONFIG knob was removed. The patch
>   it required no longer applies cleanly, its context refers a 5-year-old
>   discussion and it is not clear if it is still necessary at all.

This seems fine to me. If anyone still wants to use the
--gpu-no-context-lost cmdline argument (or any other cmdline argument,
for that matter) without the patch, they can simply add it to the
chromium-wrapper.

> - In the future, I'd like to revisit the other PACKAGECONFIG knobs as
>   well. In particular, it is not clear to me if 'impl-side-painting' and
>   'use-egl' are still needed at all,

Sounds good.

> and I'd like to drop
>   'component-build' to simplify the recipe and prevent anyone from using
>   this option in production.

Yes! And if you wanted to remove DEBUG_BUILD too, I'd be okay with
that as well. I'm confused as to the status of DEBUG_BUILD, it seems
to be removed, but you're setting debug flags?