Re: Proposal: Mesa 25.3.3 backport for trixie-backports

Hi everyone,
Thank you all so much for your comments and replies.

@Micha: Understood. I agree that the 800-file diff for the 25.3.3 CVE backp=
ort is too intrusive for a clean review. I am withdrawing that proposal.

@Fabian: That sounds like the correct path forward. Since you are planning =
to sync the toolchain (llvm) from Forky, do you have a rough timeline for t=
hat or the spirv-* packages?

I'd be happy to help test the Mesa 26 build or assist with the package prep=
aration once the dependency stack lands in trixie-backports. I have Intel A=
rc hardware ready to validate the whole stack.

Best regards,
stornic56




On Sunday, June 14th, 2026 at 4:41 AM, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <debian@fabi=
an.gruenbichler.email> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2026, at 9:22 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > On 6/13/26 15:00, stornic56 wrote:
> >> 4. Mesa 26.0.8 is extra work
> >
> > not really[0].
> >
> > a mesa backport[1] is itself a simple rebuild (no changes needed),
> > if the following packages are backported too:
> >
> >    * llvm-toolchain-21
> >      =3D> simple rebuild, no changes necessary
>=20
> that one is already in backports cause of rustc. I do plan on doing
> another sync with Forky.
>=20
> > [..]
>=20
> >    * spirv-llvm-translator-21
> >    * spirv-tools
> >    * spirv-headers
> >      =3D> simple rebuilds, no changes necessary
> >         (at least one of them could probably avoided, but not worth the
> >         effort)
>=20
> if that is planned, I'd wait for it and then do the llvm update, since
> it would allow reducing the delta ;)
>=20
> Fabian
>=20
>