[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.) |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Jul 2018 10:46:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:
>> However, I do feel frustrated by the fact that it's considered
>> acceptable in this community to leave non-x86_64 users with broken
>> systems in the name of "moving things forward" for x86_64 users.
>
> I don’t think this is true.
What is true is that most Guix users use x86_64 primarily. But there’s
also a lot of interest in ARM.
Guix doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and I think the situation of non-x86_64
support in Guix is just as good or bad as in other free software
projects. We have fewer packages available on non-x86_64 architectures,
but that’s in large part due to upstream packages not supporting those
architectures in the first place.
I agree this is sad, but repeating it doesn’t help address it.
> I do agree with your laments about a lack of popularity of non-x86_64
> systems and thus developers, but I do think this has been getting better
> with the work this community has done to support Guix for the aarch64
> and armhf architectures, and by adding aarch64/armhf build servers to
> the build farm. We can and should do more of this, but it won’t happen
> by decree.
Agreed.
> One thing that would help, in my opinion, is to purchase hardware and
> make it available to interested developers and/or join these new
> machines to the build farm. We would need to come to an agreement about
> at least these things:
>
> * what exact system configurations do we want?
> * where would these systems be hosted?
> * how many do we need / can we afford to buy and pay hosting fees for?
>
> The last time this has come up the discussion kinda tapered out. It
> would be good if someone or a group of people would volunteer to take
> this on and drive this project to its conclusion.
I agree! If someone cares about ARM, for instance, now’s the time to
tell us what we should buy and to offer to help out with
hosting/sysadmin. That would be immensely helpful in maintaining
non-x86_64 up to speed.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., (continued)
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Marius Bakke, 2018/07/02
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/03
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/04
- RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/04
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Kei Kebreau, 2018/07/04
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Kei Kebreau, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Jonathan Brielmaier, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Andreas Enge, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.),
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Andreas Enge, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Marius Bakke, 2018/07/02
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/03