Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mesa: Put surfaceless last #66569

Closed

Conversation

Ericson2314
Copy link
Member

I'm being a bit superstitious, as Mesa currently only cares what the
first one in the list is, treating the rest as an (unordered) set. But
that could change in the future, and I think it's just more intuitive to
list them in priority order. Mesa's own build system tends to put
surfaceless last fwiw too.

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Notify maintainers

cc @

I'm being a bit superstitious, as Mesa currently only cares what the
first one in the list is, treating the rest as an (unordered) set. But
that could change in the future, and I think it's just more intuitive to
list them in priority order. Mesa's own build system tends to put
surfaceless last fwiw too.
@matthewbauer
Copy link
Member

Closing while we wait for upstream response from https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/1672

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants