[bug#64369] Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

[John Kehayias]

Hi Chris,

On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 11:36 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:
>
> John Kehayias via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> This is a request to merge the recently created "mesa-updates"
>> branch. Currently there are just 2 patches on there, fixing/updating
>> mesa only. The main thing to see is how substitute building goes in
>> case anything breaks, but I'm hoping there isn't anything caused by
>> this update.
>>
>> I believe the "ruby-team" and "tex-team-next" [1] are ahead in the
>> queue, not sure the timing of where those are. In
>> addition/alternatively, would it make sense to have this branch as a
>> separate build job on Cuirass directly as the "kernel-updates" branch?
>> This would need a build roughly every month or so when mesa puts out a
>> new update, we check for breakages, and then merge to master with
>> substitutes available already.
>
> I think ruby-team should be merged in the next few days. There's quite a
> few changes in tex-team-next so that might take a little longer.
>
> QA should start building the branch automatically when ruby-team is
> merged, and I've created a specification on ci.guix.gnu.org for
> mesa-updates now.
>

Thanks! I've seen it build and looks like good coverage on x86_64 and
i686 at least in raw weather number, though I'm not sure on the QA
branch comparison page it is showing me the correct info. For example,
this shows nothing as broken or still working:
<https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/compare/package-derivations?base_commit=2b25bc03a11e1c6a473bbb000c35e94233120346&target_commit=7013921be6f9f2de49d5806a93eaee1d95cac1c6&system=x86_64-linux&target=none&build_change=still-working&after_name=&limit_results=40>

Or is that because Bordeaux hasn't built the branch?

So I'm not sure if anything much broke, but at least a good number of
substitutes are built for x86_64/i686.

>> I wasn't sure if this needs formal blockers in debbugs for the other
>> branch merge requests, let me know!
>
> I've gone ahead and reassigned this issue to guix-patches, rather than
> the guix package. It's a very minor distinction, but I think
> guix-patches is the right place for this issue.
>
> As for the blocking things, I don't think that's necessary at the
> moment.
>

Sounds good, thanks!

John