Re: [PATCH] libproxy: add dependency on glib-2.0

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 14:07 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-08-17 12:57 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 18:43 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >> Without this, you will get occasional build failures if libproxy
> >> tries to build before the glib headers are placed in the sysroot.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/libproxy/libproxy_0.4.7.bb b/meta/recipes-support/libproxy/libproxy_0.4.7.bb
> >> index 7e3cf27..a39e3a8 100644
> >> --- a/meta/recipes-support/libproxy/libproxy_0.4.7.bb
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-support/libproxy/libproxy_0.4.7.bb
> >> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1+"
> >>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=7d7044444a7b1b116e8783edcdb44ff4 \
> >>                      file://utils/proxy.c;beginline=1;endline=18;md5=55152a1006d7dafbef32baf9c30a99c0"
> >>  
> >> -DEPENDS = "gconf"
> >> +DEPENDS = "gconf glib-2.0"
> >>  
> > 
> > We've gone around in circles on this and had issues over circular
> > dependencies. The bottom line is that we don't need glib-2.0 here, we
> > want to disable the glib-2.0 using components of libproxy. I don't know
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Can we _finally_ fix the mailing lists to not override the To/Cc lines
> with crap Reply-To: lines?  Once again I almost missed seeing this reply,
> since I was no longer on the To/Cc.
> 
> AFAICT, all were in agreement that it was broken, but it never got fixed.

There were a few things causing problems here such as lost admin access.
Those have been resolved and I just changed the setting that I think was
causing the problems. Let me know if there are still issues...

Cheers,

Richard