Subject: Re: [bug#73288] Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:11:49 +0000

Hello,

Thanks for the report and testing, Efraim!

I'm cc'ing guix-devel to see if anyone else wants to weigh in here:

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 08:34 AM, Efraim Flashner wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 02:38:16AM +0000, John Kehayias via Guix-patches via wrote:
>> 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
>> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/73071>. 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.
>>
>
> I built out to gtk+@3 and gtk on aarch64 without any problems, and I
> also built mesa on riscv64 and armhf without any problems.
>
> I haven't tested running any programs on those architectures.

Progress on QA/Bordeaux is, from what I hear, waiting in line behind
other branch merge requests (one is from many months ago and I don't
think will be ready soon). I think this branch is ready to merge, the
only potential issue is lower substitute coverage on
non-i686/x86_64-linux architectures. (Note that although QA shows only
in the 80% range, it was about the same as master before the more
recent rebases. No idea why as I can't find new failures that would
cause this.)

So, what shall we do? Personally, I would merge it now with the
understanding that substitutes will take time (weeks? months?) to
catch up. I don't think we have the capacity to be quicker even if
there was only one active non-master branch for these architectures.
Is this correct?

While at times issues crop up, in my experience the mesa update part
of mesa-updates (which is almost entirely what is in this current
branch) rarely causes many issues, just lots of rebuilds. We can also
always revert if something was missed. I would be happy to add a news
entry as a warning to anyone relying on substitutes for other
architectures, if that is helpful.

Thoughts? Concerns? Guidance we can solidify going forward?

Thanks!
John