From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6Bj2-0001zC-AE for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:12:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6Bj1-0008H4-LF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:12:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36035) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6Bj1-0008Gj-5X for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:12:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h6Bj0-00047C-Qj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:12:02 -0400 Subject: bug#34824: [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:10:44 +0100 From: Rutger Helling Message-ID: <20190319111044.6fd2f909@mykolab.com> In-Reply-To: <87o96886v4.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <20190312141615.2d96bb7d@mykolab.com> <87y35d8jmw.fsf@fastmail.com> <20190318104441.2dacc080@mykolab.com> <87r2b48dxk.fsf@fastmail.com> <20190318162545.4d746971@mykolab.com> <87o96886v4.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/iTpSbVp09+GRrdorV7A_ypi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 34824-done@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/iTpSbVp09+GRrdorV7A_ypi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Done, along with an update to 18.3.5. On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:50:07 +0100 Marius Bakke wrote: > Rutger Helling writes: >=20 > > I think you're right! Changing mesa from a regular input to a > > propogated one seems to have fixed all the issues for SDL. I no > > longer need patches 3-6. See below for what we can use instead. Can > > I push the patches now? =20 >=20 > Well, we still don't know *why* it is needed :-) >=20 > Could you add a comment about where it comes from (e.g. pkg-config or > the .la files) and squash this commit with the Mesa patch? LGTM with > that change, thanks! --Sig_/iTpSbVp09+GRrdorV7A_ypi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEAVThuRzJ2e93ZI3n86cn20T8yjYFAlyQwCQACgkQ86cn20T8 yjZvRQf+OKjtYi9BqXPS7RlOSqKLdcKA1pJTubWs9uv/pyxCcNi//ezNumnLiXoT W4yTFSgtKD/Em9VZdXTMyKDhlLtdlhEf5r1ScRJJ9JOldIH/hUQXnoEr5xlpACPr J8+hbcjAlHum67hOCT2nuP21G29tqSmqFcqZM35cW9GmuTh/cb7NZkE6r7hU3GYU t/wBnbXHSh7/pev6DN5L96S6Bup0+/f6rY0ow8XTUu9jmHNiiHFnduEy6DrC6B9P JahhstqFYNrrF7BEY8UIcv6xNfg8TLYXXnq4uhp6oEEOdeD70LYBj8RyGmIrEvqA BOxt5VeNO9ou4ictcyEqXGuja2nCEA== =rMsN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/iTpSbVp09+GRrdorV7A_ypi--