Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mesa: Attempt to upgrade the drivers with a minimal rebuild impact #100712

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@primeos
Copy link
Member

@primeos primeos commented Oct 16, 2020

Motivation for this change

See #44831, though this is a more extreme approach.

Not sure yet if this is a stupid idea or a good way to quickly apply Mesa updates. This mainly makes sense under the assumption that minor/patch releases only update the drivers (mesa.drivers) anyway. The plan would be to freeze mesa at X.Y.1 (first stable release of a series) and update mesa_drivers to X.Y.1+N without going through staging first. Or another idea would be to simultaneously update mesa via staging and mesa_drivers via master.

Personally I'm already using that approach to test Mesa updates and it seemed to be fine so far (though I only did very minimal testing). However with lsof I can always see a few references to the previous Mesa version, though mainly(/only?) for libgbm IIRC (e.g. /nix/store/***-mesa-X.Y.Z/lib/libgbm.so.1.0.0). For that reasons it might make sense to simultaneously update mesa via staging or implement the approach from #44831.

Note: The update to 20.1.10 doesn't make sense since 20.2.1 is already in staging, it only serves as an example.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
@primeos primeos changed the title Mesa efficient driver upgrades mesa: Attempt to upgrade the drivers with a minimal rebuild impact Oct 16, 2020
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from vcunat Oct 16, 2020
@primeos primeos force-pushed the mesa-efficient-driver-upgrades branch from dadc27a to c15cc31 Nov 7, 2020
@primeos primeos marked this pull request as ready for review Nov 7, 2020
@primeos
Copy link
Member Author

@primeos primeos commented Nov 7, 2020

@vcunat what do you think about this? Is this worth a shot or a stupid idea?

I guess there are the following drawbacks:

  • Nothing in Nixpkgs should use mesa_drivers as a dependency (might be avoidable, e.g. at least CI should complain if we define it as alias)
  • Everyone who overrides hardware.opengl.package won't get patch releases anymore
  • mesa might lack some changes (e.g. if libgbm changes)

@primeos primeos force-pushed the mesa-efficient-driver-upgrades branch from c15cc31 to 5a26268 Nov 8, 2020
@primeos primeos mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2020
10 tasks
@primeos primeos marked this pull request as draft Nov 24, 2020
@gebner gebner mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2021
10 tasks
@primeos
Copy link
Member Author

@primeos primeos commented Apr 13, 2021

This hacky idea isn't required anymore thanks to #118479 (see #118753 (comment)) :)

@primeos primeos closed this Apr 13, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant