Subject: bug#74780: closed (Re: bug#74780: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 02:12:03 +0000

Your bug report

#74780: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
74780: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=74780
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#74780: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
To: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Cc: Efraim Flashner <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 02:11:07 +0000
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Ludo’!

On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 06:38 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Sure.  Please do check the situation at
> <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/mesa-updates> and how it compares to
> ‘master’.
>

Yes, I've been keeping an eye on that and by overall percentage (from
the Cuirass homepage), the mesa-updates branch has been about equal to
master for a while. Though I know the missing stuff is for non-x86
which we get more of from Bordeaux, which is what I usually try to
wait for, unfortunately harder to tell without the handy QA page
comparison.

> You can check that direct dependents of packages that were upgraded
> still build fine.  For example, “guix build -P1 mesa --no-grafts -n -v1”
> will indicate whether substitutes are available for all of the direct
> dependents of ‘mesa’, meaning that they were successfully built.
>

Oh, the new dependents option for guix build, very nice! I hadn't
tried it before but this is great.

I didn't see something like this built-in (maybe I missed it?) but
seems pretty easy to do a comparison then to another branch. I just
did the same command on my 'master' worktree and compared, to see just
a few minor differences (so I restarted the builds since they didn't
have a clear error).

A little bash-fu could easily have a nice little comparison between
branches using substitute coverage, or maybe we want to add that as an
option directly? Maybe specifying two branches or commits to see what
package names differ (in hash or substitutes)?

> Thanks for working on this!
>
> Ludo’.

Most welcome!

Merged just now: 23231c296fb2c2af8c1c0a6ead1dd6f0833f7c45 to
a65ebe5fad6921dddb165f417761886fc114ad29.

Thanks,
John

Subject: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 06:30:42 +0000
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Guix,

Currently the mesa-updates branch just has a few updates which seem to have built fine (on x86_64 at least), see <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74779>.

I don't know of other pending changes other than a libva update I'll see about. Perhaps we can do some ungrafting too?

John