Thanks a lot! But I have so many questions. Line 33: There is already %{ix86}. Why adding another ix86? Why adding 5 new rust crates/tarballs? They aren't extracted anywhere? Just add them to the Mesa source RPM? Why? What does that help during build/install? I simpy don't understand. I don't like the supplements. I don't think we can assume that NVK is that stable, let alone NVK+Zink would be more stable than Mesa-dri-nouveau, which we don't install by default either - for good reasons.

Soc Virnyl Estela (uncomfyhalomacro) - 8 days ago

author

ix86

oh i got confused by that tbh. going to clean that up soon

why 5 new rust tarballs

nvk seems to be written in Rust so it requires those crates. it's not extracted or copied over to subprojects directory because of the MESON cache env var which points to %{_sourcedir}, a trick i just copied from archlinux PKGBUILD.

i disagree with the supplements

same. i agree that nvk isn't ready. i guess i will have to take note of that once I re-SR

Ok. I would like to avoid such a magic. Really nobody will understand this any more 3 days later - let alone me and myseelf. Please try to do this differently. Why not just extract within the %setup line with "... -b2 -b3 -b4 -b5 -b6 ..." or whatever is needed there" I need to understand the changes I accept since I'm responsible for this package.

i wonder if we could also just add a conditional also for nvk e.g. %{with nvk}. feel free to comment and add more suggestions in the next re-SR

Stefan Dirsch (sndirsch) - 8 days ago

target maintainer

Yes, you can add such a define. That way you can en/dis-able the build of NVK driver at one location in specfile.