You are not logged in.

#1 2013-09-22 04:03:44

UnsolvedCypher
Member
Registered: 2012-04-28
Posts: 198

Mesa 9.2

A while ago, Mesa and the associated Intel drivers were updated to 9.2 in [extra], however the release page [http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes/9.2.html]  says that this is a development release, and that those who want stability should wait for the next release. Wouldn't this be something more appropriate to put in [testing] rather than [extra] if there are stability concerns?
  Thanks!

Offline

#2 2013-09-22 08:58:06

sekret
Member
Registered: 2013-07-22
Posts: 204

Re: Mesa 9.2

I thought so too. But looks like there are no real problems with mesa 9.2.

Offline

#3 2013-09-22 09:05:33

Ledti
Member
Registered: 2010-07-31
Posts: 122
Website

Re: Mesa 9.2

sekret wrote:

I thought so too. But looks like there are no real problems with mesa 9.2.

I can attest to this. I've actually been using mesa-git for the last few months and besides one instance related to wayland support I haven't had a single issue. I imagine development releases are stable enough.

Offline

#4 2013-09-22 14:51:21

UnsolvedCypher
Member
Registered: 2012-04-28
Posts: 198

Re: Mesa 9.2

I've been having some stability issues, and sometimes things like flash don't display properly. I guess I'll just downgrade on my own.

Offline

#5 2013-09-22 15:20:31

adam777
Member
Registered: 2012-05-28
Posts: 158

Re: Mesa 9.2

Same here, running at 9.1.6.
That being said, I think the general idea is 9.2.0 should be stable enough.

Offline

#6 2013-09-22 15:23:00

UnsolvedCypher
Member
Registered: 2012-04-28
Posts: 198

Re: Mesa 9.2

9.2 might be stable enough, but the very fact that it comes with a notice that says that it might not be should be a sign that it should go in testing. It says it's a development release, but that's one of the things [testing] is for.

Offline

#7 2013-09-22 16:16:32

WonderWoofy
Member
From: Los Gatos, CA
Registered: 2012-05-19
Posts: 8,412

Re: Mesa 9.2

UnsolvedCypher wrote:

9.2 might be stable enough, but the very fact that it comes with a notice that says that it might not be should be a sign that it should go in testing. It says it's a development release, but that's one of the things [testing] is for.

I seems as though you feel quite strongly about this, so I think that you should know that the forums are not the place to propose such changes.  You should ideally open a flyspray/feature request on the topic, or at least go ask on [arch-general] about the reasoning behind the current release policy of mesa, as well as if it would make sense to change it to what you are suggesting.

Maybe there is a very good technical reason why this has to be done this way… like maybe some of the features of the other graphics packages depend on these development releases.  I honestly have no idea, and mesa (and the intel graphics stack in general) have always worked just fine for me, so I don't really care as long as it continues to do so.

Hopefully though, the bugtracker or mailing list might actually yield a proper response for you, as I think there tends to be the right eyes on those information channels.

Offline

#8 2013-09-22 16:18:40

UnsolvedCypher
Member
Registered: 2012-04-28
Posts: 198

Re: Mesa 9.2

WonderWoofy, thank you for the useful information. I will go try that.

Offline

#9 2013-09-22 16:33:30

Scimmia
Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 5,067

Re: Mesa 9.2

Wine packages are development releases. A number of packages are VCS snapshots, including vim.

Hell, there's a good argument to be made in a lot of projects that x.0 releases are really betas. This is Arch, you're expected to be able to deal with it if you have problems.

Last edited by Scimmia (2013-09-22 16:34:20)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB