xwayland-satellite: 0.4-unstable-2024-09-15 -> 0.5

[getchoo]

No reason to use unstable commits now

Changelog: https://github.com/Supreeeme/xwayland-satellite/releases/tag/v0.5
Diff: Supreeeme/xwayland-satellite@b962a0f...v0.5

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[sodiboo]

I was going to make this same upgrade, but when testing the package on my system (from a newly forked branch), it didn't actually work for me. see #352725. So i never submitted the PR. Did this issue manifest for you at all? Is the package actually broken with new mesa or is it just because the version was newer than my system driver? (and, if it is just that it was newer, would you happen to know why that doesn't work? a patch release ought to be backwards compatible for a non-DRM master?)

[getchoo]

Did this issue manifest for you at all?

Nope

Is the package actually broken with new mesa or is it just because the version was newer than my system driver?

I can't really be sure since I tested on NVIDIA. I can't find any bug reports about this upstream though, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter

[sodiboo]

I realize now also that either way the issue isn't caused by upgrading this package anyways. Like, the old version is broken already. I didn't open a PR because broken -> broken felt unproductive, but if you observe the package as working in its current state, then there's no reason to prolong this PR (since at any rate, it definitely doesn't make the package more broken and it does work for you)