From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id sMn7GyBvUmP3HAAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:06:24 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id wL8eGyBvUmOELgAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:06:24 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5B7A3A3E3 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:06:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olouj-0007qZ-Nt for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:06:07 -0400 Received: from [::1] (helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oloMI-0006hJ-0c for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:30:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oloMC-0006SL-7f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:30:27 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oloMA-0005zu-LA; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:30:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=uJUhE+OjSriNRbaHAHPn8Ac6zNt0eaEwHjb1p9BoV2w=; b=VvZELyQ8lMI0+YM29yPG /89nF/7E29yFbkxwaLsrPmDS0dLk6ob0u3ThOc4IkcYZUFYJ4iN+geWd/+syTxblEdHn85kuzi89t gGkyz06uQqE01JlJcd5ld7Jf6sEhg1nV+9syWs//Xx9SfNI9GZ9+2TrBwFLWnK7ckTdBMbbDqmpyY y1LDt2aS94bunS1NUy0G7uTj+muow9teZqDtSHSr5YKix1OxtXrEF1j1hVXE8vbvXL2f0b2MoszGX P+np3KPGNic+0aXE847PPkElehrekFZTOyPrYXI1EHrclHjgMmHUl7BlmvLNW4CX91F9gAGaYyuJL cLnehXFUy8obQA==; Received: from 2a02-8429-81d2-3d01-94c9-8097-ea5c-2775.rev.sfr.net ([2a02:8429:81d2:3d01:94c9:8097:ea5c:2775] helo=meije) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oloMA-0001HZ-2n; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:30:22 -0400 From: Mathieu Othacehe To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Guix-devel Subject: Re: Status of armhf-linux and powerpc64le-linux References: <87edvlknv5.fsf@gnu.org> <874jw7oinf.fsf@gnu.org> <878rlaehbn.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87h6zyo811.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6zx8t3e.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:30:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h6zx8t3e.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= =?utf-8?Q?=22's?= message of "Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:43:33 +0200") Message-ID: <87fsfh34no.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1666346784; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=uJUhE+OjSriNRbaHAHPn8Ac6zNt0eaEwHjb1p9BoV2w=; b=nEInl/CFR4eTt7QXpcv5SuYa18sQ4s7k4Eg+Ho0or1NxiAsy7p9IPVfx7rC4a/AfVqD8D4 +Z5pjERcIwpDt/sDcvbHNiVqb7QKKHJ9/1iLHTkq1WCWu8otliuJqTInh465bO8VACNlNc k+o8p1g0Iu9CjtpW2U6+/deLbQp3L1tjmX6mZUVDtAJKvE1Gur8F9wu7jooeznmuVy5oFT TeuVDa+bfMgm7WNNq3jT5QWAh9BS8wLlDUyn232UQa+iJ8TMZTrm0rAi87BOQDaNM1csiT XCZ8kvIpBFsc7gCB3kRrnHeHK6APR5j8Hox/15pxXHXIycQcQI2ugTOU2SSDyw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1666346784; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=cviX53Wu3Yn66q+vit0vFt/rGPPxV9KWU6fTJ2BxwzHQhEiYkd+rUj1PRu8XrNSWAA25ZN uEpx/c+zJm9Vg2zcp8HXn2ZmCpIIJI5fZVUOutMYT5tO7RIDnj4xvdrTxly/AfYZQ+mtdL C5YH0hvyAegvPuP76EFmHQeltE1zB/HDuXdAKfb0OOB44TUuRDTKcwcNIZ7xtnOd8ad0im z5afhfeaOAgx317JxaOpn9b9nd03HZ15yD3K0UXPr54PA/3GsBQYp3HopBEqlqhhJ+PNkf n82WSTn4NcrDT3u0Kx+DjciuOr30SPbH3pR/Lbuamo1F7bdIq0n4ZknB4zvQRw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=VvZELyQ8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.94 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=VvZELyQ8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: D5B7A3A3E3 X-Spam-Score: -4.94 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 2uwP6P5G6to0 Hey, > How frequently does that machine become unreachable? > > Its uptime right now is =E2=80=9Conly=E2=80=9D 51 days, but it seems to h= ave been > reliably building things so far (surprisingly so!). Oh so it must be available from the Cuirass point of view but not from the guix offload point of view. I'll try to fix it today. > In Cuirass, we should arrange to support partial evaluations or > per-system evaluations so that a single missing offload machine doesn=E2= =80=99t > cause the whole evaluation to fail. We can define a guix specification for x86_64-linux, i686-linux and aarch64-linux and a different one for powerpc64le-linux. That can be done really quickly. That can break some mechanisms relying on the fact that the guix specification name is "guix" though. > That=E2=80=99s radical, but maybe that=E2=80=99s the most reasonable opti= on. > > How about a plan like this: until next Thursday, we try to address the > infrastructure issues discussed above to estimate feasibility. Then we > decide on the way forward. WDYT? Alright, let's try that :). I agree that it is a pity not to release for those architectures but on the other hand, we cannot offer fresh substitutes reliably for them. The recent outages of ci.guix.gnu.org have shown once again that the infrastructure is maybe one of the most important Guix aspect. Without it, Guix is almost unusable, in particular on architectures for which it's hard to find powerful hardware. Given the limited amount of people willing to help for powerpc64le-linux and armhf-linux and the limited amount of hardware resources available for those, I think it could be reasonable to focus on a smaller set of architectures and provide stronger guarantees on those in term of substitutes availability. But let's discuss that again next week depending on our progress. Thanks, Mathieu