| 18 Oct 2025 |
 K900 | If it's broken on whatever weird target you're into now, flag it as such | 03:23:51 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
If it's broken on whatever weird target you're into now, flag it as such Llvm musl is what they are doing rn iirc, not that weird. Tbh I'd enjoy a gnuless system. | 06:49:22 |
 Alyssa Ross | I would like us to actually fix the underlying problems... | 07:00:23 |
 matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | What does postmarketOS do? | 12:19:11 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | They have a fully working system with very impressive amounts of software running, and I doubt they are fixing these things upstream | 12:19:40 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Instead I think we need to do both fire patches off upstream and add conditionals whilst we wait for them to get merged | 12:20:09 |
| Alyssa Ross | so far the "fire patches off upstream" part seems lacking… | 12:20:27 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | I believe postmarketOS just applies patches and leaves it at that | 12:20:31 |
| Alyssa Ross | why is postmarketOS the point of comparison here? | 12:20:42 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Actually pmos is just alpine. What foes alpine fo? | 12:20:52 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | * | 12:21:03 |
| Alyssa Ross | alpine submits a lot of patches upstream | 12:21:13 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Why does their entire package set work on musl? | 12:21:12 |
| Alyssa Ross | because they test it with musl | 12:21:22 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | * | 12:21:30 |
| Alyssa Ross | remember lots of the stuff you are trying to fix does work with musl, but not with musl+llvm | 12:21:38 |
| Alyssa Ross | which nobody has ever cared about until a month or two ago | 12:21:44 |
| Alyssa Ross | (in Nixpkgs) | 12:21:49 |
| Alyssa Ross | or it does work with musl, but doesn't work with cross compilation to musl, which again isn't something anybody has generally bothered to test | 12:22:19 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Okay but in this case, do you think they're shipping mesa with valgrind? | 12:22:36 |
| Alyssa Ross | easy to find out | 12:22:53 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Our mesa is super heavy | 12:23:05 |
| Alyssa Ross | but I suspect probably not because Alpine tries to be small | 12:23:07 |
| Alyssa Ross | and that means less optional dependencies enabled by default | 12:23:18 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Yes so I think there's a happy balance between conditionals and patches, and that not everything has to be an upstream patch | 12:23:47 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | like in this case valgrind is pretty heavy and maybe not all platforms should include valgrind | 12:24:04 |
| Alyssa Ross | if there's a principled criteria for that, sure | 12:24:18 |
| Alyssa Ross | but there's no fundamental reason we should include valgrind for GCC builds and not LLVM ones | 12:24:44 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | Sure, my discovery has highlighted two things:
- An issue with valgrind that needs to be fixed upstream
- Maybe valgrind is really heavy and we don't need it in mesa for all platforms
| 12:25:44 |
| matthewcroughan @ 39c3 (DECT 94667 or 97340 or 67192) | The reason Alpine has things working with mesa across the board is because they're compiling with less deps in general, so we're probably not going to have working musl for years unless we did the same | 12:26:24 |
