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

[Ian Coolidge]

Hi All,

For what it's worth, I built this chromium62 for the nitrogen6x and I'm
getting Alignment traps when loading webpages.

Are there any obvious flags or compile options I'm missing here? I haven't
tied debugging into this yet, which is my next step here. Just wanted to
know if I was missing something obvious.

Thanks!
-Ian Coolidge

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Trevor Woerner <twoerner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>