Android: fixes after r168792.

Android: fixes after r168792.

Removes obsolete reference since the package has moved.

BUG=
TEST=


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=168819

[John Knottenbelt, 2012-11-20 13:52:07]

LGTM. Thanks Marcus!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-20 13:54:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bulach@chromium.org/11420092/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-20 14:45:38]

Retried try job too often for step(s) build

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-20 15:21:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bulach@chromium.org/11420092/3003

[Yaron, 2012-11-20 17:02:59]

On 2012/11/20 15:21:27, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
> https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bulach%40chromium.org/11420092/3003

I'm curious why this didn't break the build. Some of us are seeing it locally
here when trying to gyp after syncing

[John Knottenbelt, 2012-11-20 17:10:51]

That is a mystery indeed, android_webview_java depends on the
navigation_interception_java, so it should have broken.

On 2012/11/20 17:02:59, Yaron wrote:
> On 2012/11/20 15:21:27, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
> > https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bulach%2540chromium.org/11420092/3003
> 
> I'm curious why this didn't break the build. Some of us are seeing it locally
> here when trying to gyp after syncing

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-11-20 17:18:06]

Change committed as 168819

[bulach, 2012-11-20 17:18:36]

hehe, too many "builds" :)
it broke the canaries and myself (I'm using ToT), and that probably explains the
few other people?

I think the gardened version didn't roll past it, so it may not break those...
upstream probably didn't depend on this target, so nothing was broken there..

no idea how plausible this explanation is though :)

[Yaron, 2012-11-20 17:19:15]

On 2012/11/20 17:18:36, bulach wrote:
> hehe, too many "builds" :)
> it broke the canaries and myself (I'm using ToT), and that probably explains
the
> few other people?
> 
> I think the gardened version didn't roll past it, so it may not break those...
> upstream probably didn't depend on this target, so nothing was broken there..
> 
> no idea how plausible this explanation is though :)

No, Tommy had issues with upstream client.