From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) 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 Message-ID: <874lhegjed.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180702101757.22792.51026@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20180702101758.97A6020543@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <8736x1r1g0.fsf@netris.org> <877emdwm0f.fsf@fastmail.com> <87efgknn2v.fsf@netris.org> <87in5veaao.fsf@gnu.org> <871scin5bs.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87k1qa192c.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faztw-0001iX-0S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 04:46:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fazts-0002Nw-UU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 04:46:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87k1qa192c.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:38:19 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello, Ricardo Wurmus 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=E2=80=99t think this is true. What is true is that most Guix users use x86_64 primarily. But there=E2=80= =99s also a lot of interest in ARM. Guix doesn=E2=80=99t exist in a vacuum, and I think the situation of non-x8= 6_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=E2=80=99s in large part due to upstream packages not supporting th= ose architectures in the first place. I agree this is sad, but repeating it doesn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t = 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=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99.