Mesa-10.2.5 was released - while Fedora still ships 10.1 :/

[Clemens Eisserer]

Hi,

First of all thanks for Fedora, I am a (most-time) happy user since
Fedora 2 and it is really great to see how all the improvements
accumulated over time.

Especially with the accelerated release cycle of Mesa, it would be
great if Fedora could keep up in the same manner as it does with the
kernel.
Mesa 10.1 is effectively dead with 10.2 beeing considered "old, stable
and boring" now.
So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs.
bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable
versions ;)

Thanks & best regards, Clemens

[Tom Horsley]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:21:51 +0200
Heinz Diehl wrote:

>  Wrt the mix of 32/64 bit packages (on my system), I would consider
>  rebuilding them a nightmare.. 
Another thing you might consider: I installed the Fedora 21 Branched
since I got tired of waiting for an official alpha release. It works
OK for me, getting my new "maxwell" nvidia card to function with 3D
(though not with nouveau driver yet, I still need the kmod-nvidia
from rpmfusion).

Naturally this is all in a separate boot partition so I have a safe
fallback, but I haven't really run into any bad problems.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 16:21:51 +0200,
  Heinz Diehl <htd+ml(a)fritha.org&gt; wrote:
> On 15.08.2014, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > Are you sure you're not counting rpms? It looks like there are 4 packages
> > that have mesa as the start of their name. There will be some others that
> > need to get rebuilt in order to link with the updated mesa. I can believe
> > that the latter set could get you over 20 packages.
>
> [htd@kiera ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i "mesa"
> mesa-libGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
> mesa-libglapi-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
> mesa-filesystem-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libEGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libGLU-9.0.0-4.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libglapi-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libEGL-devel-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libGLU-9.0.0-4.fc19.i686
> mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libgbm-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
> mesa-libgbm-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libxatracker-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libGLU-devel-9.0.0-4.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libGL-devel-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
> mesa-libEGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
>
> Wrt the mix of 32/64 bit packages (on my system), I would consider
> rebuilding them a nightmare.. 
Those aren't all separate packages. A single package can be associated with 
more than one rpm. When you run rpmbuild on a package, it builds all of 
the rpms for it at once. 

However as I mentioned, there are packages that depend on mesa that are 
going to need to be rebuilt as well, and that could add up.

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Heinz Diehl <htd+ml(a)fritha.org&gt; said:
>  On 15.08.2014, Bruno Wolff III wrote: 
>  > Are you sure you're not counting rpms? It looks like there are 4 packages
>  > that have mesa as the start of their name. There will be some others that
>  > need to get rebuilt in order to link with the updated mesa. I can believe
>  > that the latter set could get you over 20 packages.
>  
>  [htd@kiera ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i "mesa" 
Yes, but you don't build each of those separately.

cmambp:3:~$ rpm --qf '%{SOURCERPM}\n' -qa mesa\* | sort -u
mesa-10.1.5-1.20140607.fc20.src.rpm
mesa-libGLU-9.0.0-5.fc20.src.rpm

-- 
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net&gt;

[Heinz Diehl]

On 15.08.2014, Bruno Wolff III wrote: 

>  Are you sure you're not counting rpms? It looks like there are 4
> packages
>  that have mesa as the start of their name. There will be some others that
>  need to get rebuilt in order to link with the updated mesa. I can believe
>  that the latter set could get you over 20 packages. 
[htd@kiera ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i "mesa"
mesa-libGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
mesa-libglapi-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
mesa-filesystem-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-9.0.0-4.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libglapi-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-devel-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-9.0.0-4.fc19.i686
mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libgbm-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686
mesa-libgbm-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libxatracker-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-devel-9.0.0-4.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libGL-devel-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-9.2.4-1.20131128.fc19.i686

Wrt the mix of 32/64 bit packages (on my system), I would consider
rebuilding them a nightmare..

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

>  Are there any unofficial reporsitories for Mesa-10.2 or 10.3 git?
>  Reason is I've bought a few games on steam and would like to play
>  them, but the Intel OpenGL driver in mesa 10.1 doesn't work well.
>  Now with the proprietary drivers I could simply perform an update,
>  with the free ones I would have to re-compile mesa - which is
>  something I don't really dare... 

Would this be a good use of COPR?

Richard

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 13:56:30 +0200,
  Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> Hi Wolf,
>
> > Rebuilding the source rpm usually isn't a problem. You could get a 10.2.5
> > srpm from f21 or a 10.3 srpm from rawhide.
>
> Mesa consists of about ~20 packages :/ 
Are you sure you're not counting rpms? It looks like there are 4 packages 
that have mesa as the start of their name. There will be some others that 
need to get rebuilt in order to link with the updated mesa. I can believe 
that the latter set could get you over 20 packages.

[Chad Kellerman]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Chad Kellerman <sunckell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi Wolf,
> >
> > > Rebuilding the source rpm usually isn't a problem. You could get a
> > 10.2.5
> > > srpm from f21 or a 10.3 srpm from rawhide.
> >
> > Mesa consists of about ~20 packages :/
> >
>
>  Not sure if this can help or not...  But, Intel has a video driver update
>  utility that downloads all the latest and greatest Mesa / Cairo / vaapi
>  drivers from their own repo.
>
>  I did it the other day, I don't have my laptop with me at the moment, so I
>  can not tell you versions, but that may help if you have an intel video
>  card.
>
>  
it would have been nice if I included the link..

https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads



> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > users mailing list
> > users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
> >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Remember Folks...  "I'm sorry" and "My Bad" mean the same thing. 
> Unless
>  you are at a funeral.
>  


-- 
Remember Folks...  "I'm sorry" and "My Bad" mean the same thing. 
Unless
you are at a funeral.

[Chad Kellerman]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

>  Hi Wolf,
>
>  > Rebuilding the source rpm usually isn't a problem. You could get a 10.2.5
>  > srpm from f21 or a 10.3 srpm from rawhide.
>
>  Mesa consists of about ~20 packages :/
>  
Not sure if this can help or not...  But, Intel has a video driver update
utility that downloads all the latest and greatest Mesa / Cairo / vaapi
drivers from their own repo.

I did it the other day, I don't have my laptop with me at the moment, so I
can not tell you versions, but that may help if you have an intel video
card.





>  Regards
>  --
>  users mailing list
>  users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>  Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
>  


-- 
Remember Folks...  "I'm sorry" and "My Bad" mean the same thing. 
Unless
you are at a funeral.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 13:40:35 +0200,
  Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> Are there any unofficial reporsitories for Mesa-10.2 or 10.3 git?
> Reason is I've bought a few games on steam and would like to play
> them, but the Intel OpenGL driver in mesa 10.1 doesn't work well.
> Now with the proprietary drivers I could simply perform an update,
> with the free ones I would have to re-compile mesa - which is
> something I don't really dare... 
Rebuilding the source rpm usually isn't a problem. You could get a 10.2.5 
srpm from f21 or a 10.3 srpm from rawhide.

[Clemens Eisserer]

Hi again,

> > Especially with the accelerated release cycle of Mesa, it would
> be
> > great if Fedora could keep up in the same manner as it does with the
> > kernel.
> > Mesa 10.1 is effectively dead with 10.2 beeing considered "old, stable
> > and boring" now.
> > So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs.
> > bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable
> > versions;)
>
>  You can CC to the RFE bug and see if the maintainer wishes to update or not.
>  Please refrain from adding "me, too" type of comments, though. :)
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126223 
The bug has been closed as "fixed - next release", so no plans to
update the anicient version of mesa shipped with Fedora 20.
Usually I don't complain, the 6-month release cycle is frequent enough
to keep things more or less up-to-date, but with 10-12 months between
Fedora 20 and 21 things are starting to get rusty.

Are there any unofficial reporsitories for Mesa-10.2 or 10.3 git?
Reason is I've bought a few games on steam and would like to play
them, but the Intel OpenGL driver in mesa 10.1 doesn't work well.
Now with the proprietary drivers I could simply perform an update,
with the free ones I would have to re-compile mesa - which is
something I don't really dare...

Regards, Clemens

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 08/03/2014 09:37 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>  Especially with the accelerated release cycle of Mesa, it would be
>  great if Fedora could keep up in the same manner as it does with the
>  kernel.
>  Mesa 10.1 is effectively dead with 10.2 beeing considered "old, stable
>  and boring" now.
>  So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs.
>  bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable
>  versions;) 
You can CC to the RFE bug and see if the maintainer wishes to update or not. 
Please refrain from adding "me, too" type of comments, though. :)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126223

[Clemens Eisserer]

Hi Wolf,

>  Rebuilding the source rpm usually isn't a problem. You could get
> a 10.2.5
>  srpm from f21 or a 10.3 srpm from rawhide. 
Mesa consists of about ~20 packages :/

Regards