© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
I think this bug/SRU snowballed. Let's take a step back.
It started with fixing two bugs: this one, and bug #1972977. At some point later, #1972977 was deemed not really fixed[1], and was dropped in the 0ubuntu0.3 upload[2].
That upload failed to build in jammy-proposed on arm64[3] and amd64[4].
It was deemed to be a problem introduced by some other jammy-proposed upload (unclear which one).
A new upload was made to jammy unapproved[5] (still missing an update-maintainer run, btw), stating:
Changes:
mesa (22.0.5-0ubuntu0.4) jammy; urgency=medium
.
* Add a patch to build with a newer directx-headers. (LP: #1998893)
.
mesa (22.0.5-0ubuntu0.3) jammy; urgency=medium
.
* crocus-
can get through to updates.
.
mesa (22.0.5-0ubuntu0.2) jammy; urgency=medium
.
* crocus-
older Intel hw. (LP: #1972977)
* patches: Update pci-id's for ADL-S/RPL-S. (LP: #1998893)
That is quite a big patch in an area I know nothing about. My concerns are:
- shouldn't we have a separate bug for the FTBFS? This bug here is about PCI IDs.
- what is the other package in jammy proposed that is breaking this build? Must it be released at the same time as mesa?
- the original PR[6] mentioned in the DEP3 header of the FTBFS patch is huge and complex, is that (and the backport done here) really the minimal fix for the FTBFS?
- what are the other changes incurring via this patch, now the the build is fixed? What else is changing? What is the risk analysis of that change?
I feel there is a lot of missing information, but it could just be because I'm not familiar with mesa and the graphic/3d stack. So I prefer to leave this review for another SRU team member, but thought I should leave this comment here instead of just "disappearing" :)
1. https:/
2. https:/
3. https:/
4. https:/
5. https:/
6. https:/