Re: [PATCH v11 0/9] rutabaga_gfx + gfxstream

[Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1734 bytes --]

Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:07 AM Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is> wrote:
>
>> Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org> writes:
>>
>> > - Official "release commits" issued for rutabaga_gfx_ffi,
>> >   gfxstream, aemu-base.  For example, see crrev.com/c/4778941
>> >
>> > - The release commits can make packaging easier, though once
>> >   again all known users will likely just build from sources
>> >   anyways
>>
>> It's a small thing, but could there be actual tags, rather than just
>> blessed commits?  It'd just make them easier to find, and save a bit of
>> time in review for packages.
>>
>
> I added:
>
> https://crosvm.dev/book/appendix/rutabaga_gfx.html#latest-releases-for-potential-packaging
>
> Tags are possible, but I want to clarify the use case before packaging.
> Where are you thinking of packaging it for (Debian??)? Are you mostly
> interested in Wayland passthrough (my guess) or gfxstream too?  Depending
> your use case, we may be able to minimize the work involved.

Packaging for Nixpkgs (where I already maintain what to my knowledge is
the only crosvm distro package).  I'm personally mostly interested in
Wayland passthroug, but I wouldn't be surprised if others are interested
in gfxstream.  The packaging work is already done, I've just been
holding off actually pushing the packages waiting for the stable
releases.

The reason that tags would be useful is that it allows a reviewer of the
package to see at a glance that the package is built from a stable
release.  If it's just built from a commit hash, they have to go and
verify that it's a stable release, which is mildly annoying and
unconventional.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]