mbox series

[0/2] mesa: bump to 26.0.0

Message ID 20260213-mesa-26-v1-0-9e925e474091@cherry.de
Headers show
Series mesa: bump to 26.0.0 | expand

Message

Quentin Schulz Feb. 13, 2026, 1:22 p.m. UTC
This fixes a small oversight of llvm missing for compiling i915 gallium
driver.

This bumps mesa to 26.0.0, the latest stable release.

This is based on top of
https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260212-mesa-25-3-5-v1-1-d95fd99f10c2@cherry.de/

Tested on Rockchip RK3588, RK3399 and PX30 (panfrost/panthor) with
kmscube and clpeak.

Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
---
Quentin Schulz (2):
      mesa: fix missing llvm dependency for i915
      mesa: upgrade 25.3.5 -> 26.0.0

 ...u-drop-file-names-from-the-generated-file.patch |  45 ---------
 ...eno-don-t-encode-build-path-into-binaries.patch | 107 +++++++--------------
 ...on-t-dump-genvk.py-args-to-generated-file.patch |  36 -------
 ...t-drop-file-names-from-the-generated-file.patch |  45 ---------
 meta/recipes-graphics/mesa/mesa.inc                |  14 ++-
 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 205 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 84e278c4cd440fef82408bb23d7e503ab33ac5a7
change-id: 20260212-mesa-26-2fd6ba74d0c7

Best regards,
--  
Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>

Comments

Martin Jansa Feb. 13, 2026, 2:26 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 2:23 PM Quentin Schulz via
lists.openembedded.org <foss=0leil.net@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> This fixes a small oversight of llvm missing for compiling i915 gallium
> driver.
>
> This bumps mesa to 26.0.0, the latest stable release.

I am not against this upgrade, but mesa has this strange versioning
that 26.0.0 is considered new development release not stable release.

As in:
https://docs.mesa3d.org/relnotes/26.0.0.html
Mesa 26.0.0 is a new development release. People who are concerned
with stability and reliability should stick with a previous release or
wait for Mesa 26.0.1.
Quentin Schulz Feb. 13, 2026, 2:56 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Martin,

On 2/13/26 3:26 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 2:23 PM Quentin Schulz via
> lists.openembedded.org <foss=0leil.net@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>
>> This fixes a small oversight of llvm missing for compiling i915 gallium
>> driver.
>>
>> This bumps mesa to 26.0.0, the latest stable release.
> 
> I am not against this upgrade, but mesa has this strange versioning
> that 26.0.0 is considered new development release not stable release.
> 
> As in:
> https://docs.mesa3d.org/relnotes/26.0.0.html
> Mesa 26.0.0 is a new development release. People who are concerned
> with stability and reliability should stick with a previous release or
> wait for Mesa 26.0.1.

Yes. Ross said[1] to send this as RFC so (I assume) we can review and/or 
make it do rounds on the autobuilder before 26.0.1. Then Alex said[2] he 
doesn't think it carries any meaning anymore considering they now have 
multiple rounds of release candidates. So... /me shrugs

[1] https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39496615;
     https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39496624;
[2] https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39498266;

So I followed whatever Alex said, but we can also have this as an RFC as 
preparation for 26.0.1 which would come in a few weeks.

I think my interest is to make 6.0 use 26.0.x such that we don't have to 
go through TSC to bump the mesa version in the next LTS.

I don't care much either way, at least there's something we can review 
and comment on and people don't do the work twice (or more) :)

Cheers,
Quentin
Martin Jansa Feb. 13, 2026, 3:25 p.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 3:57 PM Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 2/13/26 3:26 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 2:23 PM Quentin Schulz via
> > lists.openembedded.org <foss=0leil.net@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> This fixes a small oversight of llvm missing for compiling i915 gallium
> >> driver.
> >>
> >> This bumps mesa to 26.0.0, the latest stable release.
> >
> > I am not against this upgrade, but mesa has this strange versioning
> > that 26.0.0 is considered new development release not stable release.
> >
> > As in:
> > https://docs.mesa3d.org/relnotes/26.0.0.html
> > Mesa 26.0.0 is a new development release. People who are concerned
> > with stability and reliability should stick with a previous release or
> > wait for Mesa 26.0.1.
>
> Yes. Ross said[1] to send this as RFC so (I assume) we can review and/or
> make it do rounds on the autobuilder before 26.0.1. Then Alex said[2] he
> doesn't think it carries any meaning anymore considering they now have
> multiple rounds of release candidates. So... /me shrugs
>
> [1] https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39496615;
>      https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39496624;
> [2] https://libera.catirclogs.org/yocto/2026-02-12#39498266;
>
> So I followed whatever Alex said, but we can also have this as an RFC as
> preparation for 26.0.1 which would come in a few weeks.
>
> I think my interest is to make 6.0 use 26.0.x such that we don't have to
> go through TSC to bump the mesa version in the next LTS.
>
> I don't care much either way, at least there's something we can review
> and comment on and people don't do the work twice (or more) :)

I agree with all above and I am not against this upgrade.

I'm just pointing that you shouldn't call it "latest stable release"
in the cover letter (which is what triggered me to check the release
notes if mesa changed their versioning). I don't think you need to
re-send, it's not even in the commit messages and nobody will read
cover letter after it's merged :).

Cheers,