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

[Z572]

John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 03:02 PM, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 06:04:08PM +0800, Z572 wrote:
>>> John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> > John
>>>
>>> maybe is time to merge?
>>>
>>> see <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/mesa-updates>
>>> ci       have x86_64-linux 96.3%, i686-linux 87.7%, powerpc64le-linux 85.5%
>>> bordeaux have x86_64-linux 91.5%, i686-linux 77.8%, armhf-linux
>>> 79.4%, aarch64-linux 89.0%.
>>>
>>> Is there anything else in the way?
>>
>> Comparing them against master and against each other:
>> x86_64: comparable on ci, slight regression on bordeaux
>> i686:   comparable on ci, regression on bordeaux (91.8 -> 77.8)
>> aarch64: comparable on ci, regression on bordeaux (97.0 -> 89.0)
>> armhf:  slight regression on bordeaux
>> ppc64le: comparable on ci and bordeaux
>> riscv64: regression on bordeaux (62.0 -> 28.2)
>>
>> I feel like bordeaux will catch-up fairly quickly post merge.  However,
>> we do now have the regression page for bordeaux of master vs
>> mesa-updates:
>> <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/mesa-updates/package-changes?x86_64-linux-change=blocked&x86_64-linux-change=still-blocked&x86_64-linux-change=unknown-to-blocked&x86_64-linux-change=new-blocked>
>>
>> However, after spot-checking a few of them to see if there are
>> substitutes (including gnome and openjdk) it looks like it probably just
>> needs to be sent through again.
>>
>> It looks okay to me
>
> I had been keeping a close eye some weeks ago during the initial batch
> of patches I pushed and I also think everything looks good. I was just
> waiting for non-x86 substitute coverage which seems to finally be
> there as noted above after waiting for other branches and recent
> Berlin issues. I have been running my system on this branch for a
> couple weeks as well.
>
> However, the other day on IRC there was a comment about (if I
> remember) Sway hardware acceleration needing newer libva...? I think
> it was Josselin (cc'ed); apologies if I misremembered as I was
> traveling.
>
> Is that a blocker? If so, it would be good to have that update (plus
> likely yet another mesa version bump) so substitutes can be
> rebuilt. But I also don't want to hold up any other branches longer
> than necessary as this has already been waiting for some weeks.

i think we can merge this branch first, and setup a new branch to fix/update
libva and mesa, people can use inferior to get have hardware
acceleration package on new branch. WDYT?

>
> John

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature