GNU bug report logs - #73288
Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 73288 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: John Kehayias <john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com>
To: Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, 73288 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73288] Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.