[RFC][PATCH] libdrm: Convert to Android.mk to Android.bp

[Eric Engestrom]

On Tuesday, 2019-09-17 19:15:36 +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> This patch removes the deprecated Android.mk files and replaces
> them with Android.bp files.
> 
> This is needed in order to build libdrm/master against recent
> Android releases and AOSP/master, as some of the Treble build
> options required since Android O cannot be expressed in
> Andorid.mk files.
> 
> Patch originally by Dan Willemsen with fixes folded in by:
>  Jerry Zhang, Eliott Hughes and myself.
> 
> With this change, the only patches carried by Android for libdrm
> would be the gerrit OWNERS meta-data file.
> 
> Cc: Mauro Rossi <issor.oruam at gmail.com>
> Cc: Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org>
> Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
> Cc: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
> Cc: Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org>
> Cc: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
> Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul at chromium.org>
> Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
> Cc: Eric Anholt <anholt at google.com>
> Cc: Jiyong Park <jiyong at google.com>
> Cc: Alistair Strachan <astrachan at google.com>
> Cc: Dan Willemsen <dwillemsen at google.com>
> Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal at linaro.org>
> Cc: Vishal Bhoj <vishal.bhoj at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org>
> ---
> I know last time this was proposed, there was some concern about
> maintaining support for old AOSP releases - and while we could
> still support both with Android.mk that was a fair concern.
> 
> However, now that it is a requirement for newer releases, I'd
> contend that being able to build/test libdrm/master against
> AOSP/master and recent releases is more valuable then soley
> maintaining support for old and unsupported Android releases.

Acked-by: Eric Engestrom <eric at engestrom.ch>

But to be clear, what's the earliest android version that supports
blueprint? (might be worth adding that to the commit message)

> 
> So I wanted to submit this again for discussion.
> 
> thanks
> -john