Hmm, I wonder if anyone did propose this before but have you (@rjahanbakhshi and @Lone_Wolf) considered making this a split package? I see more than a few benefits from that change:
-
It could follow Arch
mesapackage set, withextra/mesapackage being a loader, not entire implementation, allowing for more modular implementations. This would feel more natural for users expecting AURmesa-gitto offer same package set and that would like to install bothmesa-git. Right now AUR has some standalone packages that, at first glance, seem like part ofmesa-gitbut aren't. -
LLVM could as well be tied up to some mutually exclusive metapackage set, like
mesa-llvm-provider-*as a build dep and specialize it towards more specific llvm provider flavor as package dep, which would move the env-based LLVM picking towardspacmandependency-based solution that probably would also be more robust solution with AUR helpers.
For also implementing (1) I am pretty sure this would require further discussing with, or at least informing, other AUR maintainers and removing those packages to migrate towards mesa-git provided split. It could also introduce some maintenance burden as most likely the package separation would have to be handled on PKGBUILD side than on upstream, I don't think mesa has that kind of installation infrastructure and I believe this is also being done in Arch mesa PKGBUILD. Some could also argue about new packages that needs to be introduced over time, but if we track all installation files that are expected to be placed for a given package (even as a directory, recursively), I can see it could be handled either in failing or non-failing (e.g. special package and warning) way, depending on what would be preferred method to do so
This is just currently a brief of the concept I had in mind, not sure if I had missed other implications with it, I didn't really thought or experimented with it that much yet. Maybe it is something that others have asked before, maybe some pinned comment could clarify it?
Pinned Comments
Lone_Wolf commented on 2024-09-10 19:58 (UTC) (edited on 2026-08-11 15:58 (UTC) by Lone_Wolf)
rusticl is now provided by opencl-mesa.
Note that only a few hardware drivers are supported by default, see https://docs.mesa3d.org/envvars.html#rusticl-environment-variables for info about enabling others.
Lone_Wolf commented on 2020-04-23 12:26 (UTC) (edited on 2023-03-30 07:04 (UTC) by Lone_Wolf)
Mesa and llvm are closely tied together. Everytime the llvm mesa is built against changes/updates , mesa needs to be rebuilt.
I expect anyone building mesa-git against one of the llvm trunk variants to be able to do that themselves, but atleast some of the people that built against repo llvm don't understand how to deal with such a rebuild.
The rest of this post is meant for those people.
Option A - best onesee https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_clean_chroot for the official way or https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/clean-chroot-manager for an alternative method.
Option B - 2nd bestLone_Wolf commented on 2019-07-09 13:43 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 10:41 (UTC) by Lone_Wolf)
WARNING : aur helpers don't support this method at all. They check .SRCINFO and that doesn't include this variable so it will use the default which is hardcoded to build against repo llvm.Why would I want to use llvm development versions ?
Lone_Wolf commented on 2018-01-30 14:06 (UTC) (edited on 2023-02-12 11:56 (UTC) by Lone_Wolf)
run pacman Syu update non-repo packages for llvm if you use them
build mesa-git, log out , update mesa-git and restart X .
run
glxinfo -Bto verify basic OpenGL functionalitybuild lib32-mesa-git
run
glxinfo32 -Bto verify basic OpenGL functionality for multilib programs