Arch Linux User Repository

Build order

llvm-minimal-git
spirv-headers-git
spirv-tools-git
spirv-llvm-translator-minimal-git
libclc-minimal-git
glslang-minimal-git
mesa-minimal-git

glslang-minimal-git must be built after spirv-tools-git and before mesa-minimal-git

Build frequency

I aim to build everything (including the lib32 part) atleast once a week.

How often you build this is a personal choice, but once a month is in my opinion the absolute maximum .

In that timeframe mesa will have seen almost 1k commits, llvm/clang gets more.

Why does this package hard depend on llvm-minimal-git ?

• performance

archlinux repo packages are build with -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic which works on lots of machines but makes limited use of modern processor capabilities. For many packages this has little impact, but with llvm my experience is different.

My local builds for llvm / mesa are done with -march=native and this has a noticeable effect on their performance.

How big the benefit of this is depends heavily on the exact hardware you use. Worse, the software setup also impacts this. The only way to find out if it benefits your system/software setup is to try it out yourself.

• easier maintenance and troubleshooting

Since i started my first mesa trunk package late in 2010 I have maintained versions without any llvm, one llvm implementation, split versions, singular versions, versions supporting multiple llvm implementations , switch from libgl hacks libglvnd to allow mesa & nvidia to cooperate etc.

Depending on one llvm variant in a non-splitted singular version results in a simple PKGBUILD that is easy to maintain.

Troubleshooting is also much easier if maintainer uses the same llvm variant as users.

If people feel those reasons are not good enough to hard depend on llvm-minimal-git , maybe I should transfer ownership .

Why does this exist ?

Basically mesa/mesa-git build almost everything they can build.

This package tries to build just enough so everyone can use it, but disables older and/or unused components.

Check https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=261629 for a discussion about this package.

This is perfectly acceptable to me. I just wasn't aware of the change as it had worked previously and then builds suddenly required a change in dependencies. My only reason previously for maintaining llvm versus llvm-minimal-git was the complex dependency workarounds with MESA_WHICH_LLVM which didn't play well with yay, or makepkg for that matter.

Thank you for the explanation and for your work in maintaining these packages.

Why does this package hard depend on llvm-minimal-git ?

• performance

archlinux repo packages are build with -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic which works on lots of machines but makes limited use of modern processor capabilities. For many packages this has little impact, but with llvm my experience is different.

My local builds for llvm / mesa are done with -march=native and this has a noticeable effect on their performance.

How big the benefit of this is depends heavily on the exact hardware you use. Worse, the software setup also impacts this. The only way to find out if it benefits your system/software setup is to try it out yourself.

• easier maintenance and troubleshooting

Since i started my first mesa trunk package late in 2010 I have maintained versions without any llvm, one llvm implementation, split versions, singular versions, versions supporting multiple llvm implementations , switch from libgl hacks libglvnd to allow mesa & nvidia to cooperate etc.

Depending on one llvm variant in a non-splitted singular version results in a simple PKGBUILD that is easy to maintain.

Troubleshooting is also much easier if maintainer uses the same llvm variant as users.

If people feel those reasons are not good enough to hard depend on llvm-minimal-git , maybe I should transfer ownership .

Is there a reason you now require llvm-minimal-git when regular llvm from the standard repos builds fine? I'd be fine if there was a bug or build reason, but I haven't seen evidence of breakage.

Why does this exist ?

Basically mesa/mesa-git build almost everything they can build.

This package tries to build just enough so everyone can use it, but disables older and/or unused components.

Check https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=261629 for a discussion about this package.

Thanks, I adopted both.

I disowned both packages.

Shoober420, please transfer maintainership of this and lib32-mesa-minimal-git to me.

I have a PKGBUILD ready that does differ a lot from mesa-git, builds faster and creates a smaller package.

See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=261629 for details

Oh, I see. A few minor features and debug options have been turned off. Plus, this version is built with -O3.

Is there any measurable advantage in benchmarks?

What's the difference between this package and mesa-git? The package description is identical.