[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: |
Jonathan Brielmaier |
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, 5 Jul 2018 11:04:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 |
On 7/5/18 12:32 AM, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> I'm open to suggestions. Do you see any solution to the problem of how
>> to attract more non-x86_64 users, given our current policies?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>
> I am interested in helping with non-x86_64 issues. Particularly, helping
> with i686-related changes should be just a change in workflow, but I'm
> interested in obtaining freedom-respecting non-x86 hardware (or at least
> using a virtual machine as close as possible to real hardware
> configurations). Any recommendation or links for where I can get a
> Yeeloong laptop or what freedom-respecting armhf computers are
> available?
I just want to bring POWER up as a freedom-respecting architecture.
Especially the TalosII from RaptorCS[0]. I know that guix does not work
on ppc64le yet, but I'm working for it :) They tend to be quite
expensive, but you get a decent performance on compiling and packing[1].
Regarding ARM hardware: I have access to a bunch of performant ARM
machines (Cavium Thunder, AMD ARM stuff etc.) at work. So feel free to
drop me a mail or set me to CC, if you need something to be tested on ARM :)
[0] https://raptorcs.com/
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=power9-talos-2&num=3
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/02
- 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 <=
- 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, 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.), 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