Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 21:23:36 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 230298] graphics/mesa-dri: update to 18.2.3 Message-ID: <bug-230298-7141-2McNgpBKY6@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-230298-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-230298-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230298 Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|graphics/mesa-dri: update |graphics/mesa-dri: update |to 18.2.2 |to 18.2.3 --- Comment #12 from Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #9) > The rationale for the rejection seems clear to me: He's stated that the n= ew > MESA hasn't been tested. - there was public call for testing on ports@ + x11@ mailing lists; only 1 = user heeded it but didn't confirm if anything has regressed or not (compared to = have never worked on the specific hardware/drm version) - x11@ team QA is opaque i.e., not clear how their testing is better or why shoving patches to an external repo would magically attract testers > There's efforts under way to get a test suite in place to rectify that > problem. How a test suite is going to help with the lack of GPU variety? IIRC, one of the *former* x11@ peers had a lab of hardware to test things against but di= dn't last long as such a job isn't fun for a volunteer. > and there's been no articulated reasons why a new version is needed. - New hardware support - Support for newer OpenGL versions - Better Vulkan support - Better support for new LLVM versions=20 - Upstream support (Mesa 18.1.* reached EOL after 18.2.1 release; LLVM 6 reached EOL after LLVM 7 release) FreeBSD only has one Mesa version in ports tree atm, and it has to support everything: from ancient hardware on the oldest FreeBSD version to the shiny new stuff on -CURRENT. Old users maybe complacent with what little features FreeBSD currently provides but new users want more, often stuff available a= s a given on Linux. Perfect stability is hard to reach without telemetry, anywa= y. > This close to a FreeBSD release, we should be conservative in how we appr= oach > this and make sure things work. MFH to 2018Q4 isn't planned here. Are you implying FreeBSD 12.0 will not sh= ip before 2019Q1? Otherwise, /quarterly is a moving target and keeping POLA wh= ile backporting regressions is a usual occurence but the state is reset each cycle/quarter (along with binary packages). (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #10) > Confusing that you set maintainer feedback to '+' for this, but there you= go. maintainer-approval is an attachment flag unlike maintainer-feedback which = is a bug flag. Mesa 18.2 is a moving target, so there's no attachment. I've requested review (not approval) since the first RC to give x11@ team plenty= of time but so far have received only some homework questions that don't count= as review, much less testing. (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #11) > Also, migrating to a new version of MESA may muddy the waters for the drm= to ports conversion we're undergoing, drm-legacy-kmod doesn't support FreeBSD < 12, so this has always been the c= ase. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-230298-7141-2McNgpBKY6>