Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

Hello all,

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 wasn't sure if this needs formal blockers in debbugs for the other branch merge requests, let me know!

Thanks,

John

[0] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63713

[1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64324

reassign 64369 guix-patches

thanks

John Kehayias via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:

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.

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.

Thanks,

Chris

Hi Chris,

On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 11:36 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:

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:

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.

Sounds good, thanks!

John

Pushed to the mesa-updates branch, merging progress tracked in

Thanks.

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 06:58 PM, ??? wrote:

I just saw this as the message only went to the bug number. I would not

have merged this yet without checking about build status after the big

texlive updates. I was hoping to avoid a full rebuild so we could merge

to master with substitutes already, after checking post-texlive and the

graft of mesa on master.

However, doesn't seem like Cuirass has picked up this change and hasn't

built yet. Any idea why?

My plan right now was going to be to merge master into mesa-updates, see

what the build status looks like, and then decide from there. If there

were not too many rebuilds (say less than 1000) from the updates on

master, we should be able to go ahead soon. And then start on the next

round of patches/updates for mesa-updates.

On the other hand, if there were lots of rebuilds there are other

patches waiting that should be used also (libdrm, libva if I remember)

as well as ungrafting the change on master. So, preventing waiting and

doing another big rebuild with the changes that have been waiting since

the first build of this branch.

What do people think? My thought right now was to revert this change

(since it rebuilds all of mesa dependents), merge master in, and check

the status. But I'm confused why Cuirass wasn't building..

John

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

Cuirass at ci.guix.gnu.org seems to be having problems noticing new

revisions. At least it's about a day behind for master branch revisions.

The mesa package wasn't affected by tex-team-next, so unless there are

other inputs to most/all off the packages to which mesa is an input,

there shouldn't be many rebuilds. I'd still rebase or merge master in to

the branch and see what QA says though.

Whether you want to revert this latest commit and try and merge sooner,

or wait for things to be built and merge later is up to you though.

Hi Chris,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:03 PM, Christopher Baines wrote:

Okay, thanks for the info. So either way will let things build through

the weekend probably.

Right, wasn't sure what the number of rebuilds the texlive updates

caused beyond tex-related stuff, so I didn't want to assume.

Are we able to rebase and then force push on savannah? I thought not,

or is that just for the master branch? If I can force push (I suppose

I could just try later), I would leave off 64738 (zstd in mesa) and

rebase on master. Otherwise I guess revert and merge master to

mesa-updates.

Then either way see what rebuilding looks like. If there isn't much

I'd opt for going sooner while we have substitutes already and then

gather these other patches for the next merge. Likely waiting for a

new mesa update which is probably due very soon. But if things will be

rebuilding a lot anyway, I might as well get all these other related

changes in to just build once.

Thanks Chris, I'll see what to do and keep an eye on the builds.

John

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

Not directly, but you can delete the branch and then just push as if it

is a new branch to effectively force push.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 06:04 PM, Christopher Baines wrote:

Gotcha. That's what I did to rebase on master as of now. Let's see

what happens with the build and go from there.

Thanks!

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:23 PM, John Kehayias wrote:

I'm not sure what is going on with the CI and QA.

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/ hasn't shown any new evaluations in several

days (the workers were stuck at some point too, but nckx gave it a

poke and now I don't see any builds left). But when I check with guix

weather I do get substitutes. Any ideas what the actual status is?

Thanks,

John

Hello,

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 03:14 PM, John Kehayias wrote:

Things got unstuck recently at ci.guix.gnu.org was churning away. I saw

some failed builds due to what looks like some build farm download

issue, e.g. https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1671444/details which build

fine locally. I think this is what blocked a bunch of KDE-related

packages as well. A bunch of java packages also failed but the ones I

tried also built locally (some had long build logs but I didn't see the

cause).

So I think x86 is okay, while e.g. aarch64 is slowly chipping away.

If that's okay then I'll cherry pick the commits to master today or

tomorrow.

Thanks for your help Chris!

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 03:29 PM, John Kehayias wrote:

Pushed to master with 4f0ce65b74a3d28bf6ecbe4c15052dd0de22b284 the final

commit from that branch.

Thanks!

(I'll delete the remote branch for now, until needed again.)