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

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2321 bytes --]

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


-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]