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 So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs. bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable versions ;)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
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 So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs. bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable versions;)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. :)
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 So the descision is not between shipping stable/proven versions vs. bleeding edge, but rather shipping outdated stuff vs maintained stable versions;)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. :)
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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 13:40:35 +0200, Clemens Eisserer linuxhippy@gmail.com 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.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhippy@gmail.com 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@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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Chad Kellerman sunckell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhippy@gmail.com 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@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.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 13:56:30 +0200, Clemens Eisserer linuxhippy@gmail.com 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.
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..
Once upon a time, Heinz Diehl htd+ml@fritha.org 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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 16:21:51 +0200, Heinz Diehl htd+ml@fritha.org 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.
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.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhippy@gmail.com 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 -
Chad Kellerman -
Chris Adams -
Clemens Eisserer -
Heinz Diehl -
Michael Cronenworth -
Richard Shaw -
Tom Horsley