Re: chromium detected as stripped

[Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br>]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My recipe is a lot less customizable, but OTOH that makes it
>> quite easy to move to new Chromium milestones. If we're able to find a
>> balance there, I definitely think we'd be able to get a lot more done
>> together.
>
> I think it was a mistake for meta-browser to have recently added a
> huge number of patches supporting musl. One commit alone added almost
> 700 lines of diff for musl support (not to mention the subsequent
> fixup patches)! Musl support should be kept and maintained in
> meta-musl, isn't that the purpose of meta-musl? If users want musl
> support they're going to need to add meta-musl anyway, so it's no
> change from a user's point of view. But 700 lines of patches provides
> a heavy burden for anyone trying to maintain or update meta-browser's
> chromium, especially if they don't use or care about musl support.

I tend to agree and I also believe that upgrading much of this patch
will die. Khem would you be open to reworking the support after we
upgrade? So it'd remove the patch refresh from Raphael and Trevor's
shoulders ;-)

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750