Add dependencies on mojo_application_bindings in content_common.gypi

Add dependencies on mojo_application_bindings in content_common.gypi

service_registry_impl.h includes service_provider.mojom.h, and thus
content_common should both depend on mojom_application_bindings and export that
dependency to its dependents.

To work around a problem wherein the Android build fails due to duplicate
generated files if there are two targets that both (a) compile Java and (b)
directly depend on a target processing mojoms, this CL removes the dependency
of content_java_test_support on content_common. That direct dependency doesn't
appear necessary.

Committed: https://crrev.com/8d7db928ac1f3deea4eb851ab7c1a17d1272b8f0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#306994}

[blundell, 2014-12-04 13:10:15]

blundell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ qsr@chromium.org

[blundell, 2014-12-04 13:10:15]

Ben,

Does this CL look reasonable to you from the Android POV? Understood that in the
long term we want to eliminate the root problem, but I'd like to land these
added dependencies now if possible.

[qsr, 2014-12-04 14:41:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/743093004/diff/20001/content/content_tests.gypi
File content/content_tests.gypi (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/743093004/diff/20001/content/content_tests.gy...
content/content_tests.gypi:1855: 'content.gyp:content_common',
This seems fine with me, as content_common is not used directly by this target
and is already define in content_java, but Chris (cjhopman@) might have a more
informed advice.

[blundell, 2014-12-04 14:43:29]

blundell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ cjhopman@chromium.org

[blundell, 2014-12-04 14:43:30]

Hi Chris,

Could you advise on whether it is OK to remove the dependency of
content_java_test_support on content_common? Happy to go into more context on
the motivation if it would be helpful.

[cjhopman, 2014-12-04 19:15:11]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/743093004/diff/20001/content/content_tests.gypi
File content/content_tests.gypi (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/743093004/diff/20001/content/content_tests.gy...
content/content_tests.gypi:1855: 'content.gyp:content_common',
On 2014/12/04 14:41:36, qsr wrote:
> This seems fine with me, as content_common is not used directly by this target
> and is already define in content_java, but Chris (cjhopman@) might have a more
> informed advice.

Yeah this is fine.

[blundell, 2014-12-04 22:17:24]

blundell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org

[blundell, 2014-12-04 22:17:25]

jam: could you review for //content OWNERS? note that cjhopman@ already lgtm'd
the java-related change in content_tests.gypi.

[jam, 2014-12-05 01:03:00]

lgtm

[blundell, 2014-12-05 06:59:45]

The CQ bit was checked by blundell@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-05 07:00:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/743093004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-05 07:02:32]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-05 07:03:21]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/8d7db928ac1f3deea4eb851ab7c1a17d1272b8f0
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#306994}