guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 04/09: gnu: mesa: Update to 23.0.3.


From: John Kehayias
Subject: Re: 04/09: gnu: mesa: Update to 23.0.3.
Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 04:37:09 +0000

Hi Christopher and Maxim,

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 02:41 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:

> guix-commits@gnu.org writes:
>
>> apteryx pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit 0be7838105806819f4586ec9130382a66a22880e
>> Author: Kaelyn Takata <kaelyn.alexi@protonmail.com>
>> AuthorDate: Thu May 4 20:12:46 2023 +0000
>>
>>     gnu: mesa: Update to 23.0.3.
>>
>>     * gnu/packages/gl.scm (mesa): Update to 23.0.3.
>>     [source]: Remove obsolete patch and update HTTPS url.
>>     [arguments]: Enable the crocus gallium driver.
>>     * gnu/packages/patches/mesa-fix-sporadic-test-failures.patch: Delete 
>> file.
>>     * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Remove it.
>> ---
>>  gnu/local.mk                                       |  1 -
>>  gnu/packages/gl.scm                                | 14 ++++-------
>>  .../patches/mesa-fix-sporadic-test-failures.patch  | 27 
>> ----------------------
>>  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> → guix refresh -l mesa
> Building the following 1954 packages would ensure 4257 dependent
> packages are rebuilt ...
>
>
> I know there's been some discussion about changing processes regarding
> changes like this that impact lots of packages, but as far as I'm aware,
> the documented process hasn't changed yet. So should this have gone to
> core-updates, and not been directly pushed to master?
>

I should take some responsibility over what happened here as I had
volunteered as a sort of "branch manager" (to use the terminology
later in this thread) but I was a bit slower than I wanted. My plan
was roughly in line with what we are discussing, reviewing the
patches, pushing to a new "mesa-updates" branch, and then asking for
someone to start a build job. We could then have people more easily
test or just to check build for build failures and ensure good
substitute coverage upon merging.

Anyway, I appreciate this coming up for discussion here, so thanks
Christopher. And thanks Maxim for pushing through these changes
anyway, as there were some important fixes for people (some couldn't
use wayland I think due to missing Mesa drivers, video decoding
acceleration didn't work, etc.) and selfishly I'm happy to have the
latest Mesa sooner.

My apologies for not helping lead more on this front after my public
volunteering to do so!

John




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]