From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id ADD57E00B99; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:51:48 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from ptmx.org (ptmx.org [178.63.28.110]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD76E0090A for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.14] (chello062178118086.5.14.vie.surfer.at [62.178.118.86]) by ptmx.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F3632037E; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:51:41 +0100 (CET) To: Otavio Salvador References: <1452242605-5213-1-git-send-email-dv@pseudoterminal.org> <5696A8AA.6000807@pseudoterminal.org> From: Carlos Rafael Giani Message-ID: <5697619D.1030000@pseudoterminal.org> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:51:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH] gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx: Update to version 0.12.0 X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:51:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nothing anywhere in gstreamer-imx contains anything about libfslvpuwrap. This is really puzzling. I also checked the SRCREV in the revision number, and it is correct. Can you send me a tarball with the contents of tmp/work/...-linux-gnueabi/gstreamer1.0-plugins-imx/0.12.0+AUTOINC+d7c1e7f041-r0/ ? In other words, the entire work folder of that build. On 2016-01-13 22:09, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Carlos Rafael Giani > wrote: >> This makes no sense. The new version does _not_ look for libfslvpuwrap. >> Checking the log.do_configure output of my local build confirms this. >> Perhaps for some reason the older 0.11.1 version is being used? > I checked the source code and it does not seem to look at it indeed. > However it failed on this recipe. > > Would be possible the code is auto-detecting its availability and > enabling something? >