On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 16:44, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > Your patch is good and I'm happy to merge as is, I just wanted to > mention that it might be possible to catch the mesa issue.
Thanks, I just pushed the corresponding changes to AUH. It's possible next AUH run won't be perfect, we have to wait and see (I did test passing/failing lockstep upggrades with glib, but AUH is notorious for running into corner cases over the complete recipe set). But you should be getting perfect qemu upgrade patches from now on ;) > The challenge is that even if it were identifiable, the code still > probably can't know how to actually enable it for the upgrade/testing > :(. Yes. We could insert that data into the recipe to be used by AUH/devtool, but that's even more work, and all for a single known recipe in core (mesa). For mesa I'm tempted to go back to the 'simple file rename' proposal that's already implemented; in reality no one tests mesa-gl either when they submit mesa version updates. And we have to keep telling people to include mesa-gl, because it's only natural to overlook that. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#202330): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/202330 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/107403314/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
