John Kehayias via Guix-patches via writes: > Hi all, > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 03:02 PM, Efraim Flashner wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 06:04:08PM +0800, Z572 wrote: >>> John Kehayias via Guix-patches via writes: >>> >>> > Hello Guix, >>> > >>> > The mesa-updates branch I think is just almost ready for >>> > merging. Besides some other fixes and updates, the main series is >>> > tracked at . There is an update to >>> > add NVK support to mesa for x86_64-linux which I need to review and >>> > push (and rebase to get more fixes from master). >>> > >>> > Coverage looks good for x86_64 and i686 on QA, with powerpc64le as >>> > well on Berlin. I worry that aarch64 and others may have stalled out >>> > on Bordeaux. Perhaps Efraim can chime in there. >>> > >>> > With an update for NVK for x86_64, that will take maybe a day to catch >>> > up again in builds but tends to be pretty quick. I'm not aware of >>> > other blockers. >>> > >>> > Thanks! >>> > John >>> >>> maybe is time to merge? >>> >>> see >>> ci have x86_64-linux 96.3%, i686-linux 87.7%, powerpc64le-linux 85.5% >>> bordeaux have x86_64-linux 91.5%, i686-linux 77.8%, armhf-linux >>> 79.4%, aarch64-linux 89.0%. >>> >>> Is there anything else in the way? >> >> Comparing them against master and against each other: >> x86_64: comparable on ci, slight regression on bordeaux >> i686: comparable on ci, regression on bordeaux (91.8 -> 77.8) >> aarch64: comparable on ci, regression on bordeaux (97.0 -> 89.0) >> armhf: slight regression on bordeaux >> ppc64le: comparable on ci and bordeaux >> riscv64: regression on bordeaux (62.0 -> 28.2) >> >> I feel like bordeaux will catch-up fairly quickly post merge. However, >> we do now have the regression page for bordeaux of master vs >> mesa-updates: >> >> >> However, after spot-checking a few of them to see if there are >> substitutes (including gnome and openjdk) it looks like it probably just >> needs to be sent through again. >> >> It looks okay to me > > I had been keeping a close eye some weeks ago during the initial batch > of patches I pushed and I also think everything looks good. I was just > waiting for non-x86 substitute coverage which seems to finally be > there as noted above after waiting for other branches and recent > Berlin issues. I have been running my system on this branch for a > couple weeks as well. > > However, the other day on IRC there was a comment about (if I > remember) Sway hardware acceleration needing newer libva...? I think > it was Josselin (cc'ed); apologies if I misremembered as I was > traveling. > > Is that a blocker? If so, it would be good to have that update (plus > likely yet another mesa version bump) so substitutes can be > rebuilt. But I also don't want to hold up any other branches longer > than necessary as this has already been waiting for some weeks. i think we can merge this branch first, and setup a new branch to fix/update libva and mesa, people can use inferior to get have hardware acceleration package on new branch. WDYT? > > John