armhf-linux substitutes

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:55:21PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> > The architecture armf will not be included.
>> 
>> Wait wait, I missed that.  What happened?  I think we should include it,
>> even if substitute availability remains low.
>
> I had asked about the status of the armhf branch on #guix when a few of
> us were trying to "tie up loose ends" for this release.
>
> I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but since we are not
> building substitutes for it at all, we should include in the release
> announcement a clear description of the level of support that users can
> expect.

Right, we could adjust the text in the “GNU Distribution” node of the
manual (we did that before when mips64el-linux was supported without
substitutes.)

Mathieu, what’s preventing us from doing armhf-linux builds again?  We
could use the OverDrives for that (with an upper bound though), along
with the SBCs in machines-for-berlin.scm.

That won’t be enough to keep up, so perhaps we’ll have to restrict
armhf-linux builds to the “core” subset or the release-manifest.scm.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.