Re: Supported architectures

[Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>]

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:

> Firstly, I'd like to mention that we, in general, have a minimum system
> requirement of 2GB of RAM, and IIRC there aren't a lot of armhf boards
> out there which have that much. We do have a difference between building
> natively and cross building / building with '--target'.

This really needs to be lowered IMHO.  2GB being the minimum should be
treated as a bug.

> I'd like to comment on armhf for a moment. My memory is a but rusty, but
> I'm pretty sure that in December of 2021 mesa was bumped from 21.2.x to
> 21.3.x, and at that time it stopped building on/for armhf. I noticed in
> May of 2022 (5 months later) and got the build working again. That we
> went 5 months without anyone saying anything in bug reports that mesa
> wasn't building shows that either everyone who is using it is using
> software that doesn't use mesa, or we really don't have any armhf-linux
> users. I'm not advocating dropping the architecture, but it does feel
> like we're already at a best-effort level with it. As far as the pieces
> needed for bootstrapping aarch64 software (go and probably others),
> those get built anyway as needed by aarch64, so there's no worry about
> losing support for those software bits.

Personally I'm not using Guix on my armhf machines *because* armhf is
buggy.  I would certainly love to use it, but right now postmarketOS is
sooo much better on armhf.  It would be great to be in a position where
I could submit bug reports from armhf but just doing it on i686 is
already a challenge.