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 <kkebreau@posteo.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5023 bytes --]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Hi Ludovic,
>
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>>
>>> The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the
>>> only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are
>>> frequently left in a bad spot.  This makes it increasingly unlikely that
>>> we'll ever gain a significant number of non-x86_64 users.
>>
>> This kind of rant is really unhelpful.  You’re shouting at someone who
>> *is* doing the work of keeping things running.
>
> I wasn't actually shouting, but in retrospect I can see how it came off
> that way.  I apologize for any hurt feelings that I caused.
>
> This is not Marius' fault, and I didn't intend to target him
> specifically.  I'm grateful for the large amount of important work that
> he does on Guix.
>
> 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.
>
> Portability is important to the long-term health of the free software
> movement.  Especially given that fact that Intel has long ago stopped
> producing processors that can be used without large amounts of nonfree
> software (including the Intel Management Engine), I think we should work
> to ensure that Guix works well for users of non-x86_64 systems.
>
> The origin of this problem is not in the Guix project.  Ultimately, it's
> due to the fact that x86_64 has far too much market share among
> GNU/Linux developers, and therefore the upstream projects upon which
> Guix depends are not being sufficiently tested on other platforms.
>
> However, there is one aspect of Guix that is greatly exacerbating this
> problem: our impatience to always have the latest software, even if it
> breaks other systems, is a serious problem in my view.
>
> It means that if I want to ensure that Guix works well for i686 or armhf
> users, then I would need to start trying to use Guix on those systems
> for real work, which at the present time would entail almost
> single-handedly fixing all of the portability bugs in all of the
> software that I use, at the full pace of upstream development.  I would
> need to keep this up for long enough to make Guix appear to be a safe
> choice for i686 or armhf users, so that some of them might help work on
> these portability issues in the future.
>
> Another problem is that Guile 2.2's compiler has become so heavy that
> it's nearly unbearable to use on slower hardware.  Simply running "make"
> in my Guix git checkout after updating on my mips-based Yeeloong is so
> slow that I'm in the habit of letting it run overnight.
>
> So again, and I'm saying this calmly but with great concern: given the
> current priorities of the project, I could not recommend Guix to users
> of non-x86_64 architectures, and I don't see how we can fix that without
> attracting more developers who use those architectures.  However, I
> don't see how we could attract those developers if we continue to
> prioritize "moving forward" at full speed for x86_64 users, even when it
> breaks other systems.
>
>> Generalizations about “this community” obviously make no sense.  You are
>> a part of “this community” so it cares just as much as you do.
>
> By that reasoning, since I'm part of the community of humans on planet
> Earth, the community of humans on planet Earth therefore cares as much
> about free software as I do.
>
> When I suggest that the community would not take certain suggestions
> seriously, e.g. the suggestion to block upgrades or merges that would
> break non-x86_64 systems, that statement has some meaning.  I means that
> I expect that most people here would disagree, and that the maintainers
> would rule in favor of "moving forward" at full speed, and that it will
> be the responsibility of the tiny number of non-x86_64 Guix users to fix
> portability bugs as quickly as needed so that the x86_64-using majority
> need not suffer any delays.  The problem is, we would need a *lot* more
> non-x86_64 developers in our community to make that work, and we cannot
> attract those developers given the current policies.
>
>> Please let’s work in a friendly manner towards finding solutions to the
>> problems.
>
> 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?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]