Re: Preliminary MIPS N32 port now available

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

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

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
>>
>>> Personally, I think mips64el should be a fully qualified release architecture
>>> just as i686 and x86_64. So it would be better to have it in master and
>>> not in a separate branch.
>>>
>>> So far, the only machines of this architecture available (and of interest)
>>> to developers are loongson.
>>
>> I agree.  Let’s not go ahead of ourselves: when someone comes up with a
>> plan to use Guix on a mips64el machine that is not Loongson, then we can
>> adapt (and it’s great that you know about all these Loongson workarounds.)
>
> Okay, sounds good.

Cool.

> However, since it takes me over a week to rebuild even a basic system
> after a core package has changed, I need to start by building on a
> more stable base.  That will allow me to find problems higher up in
> the software stack and apply patches as needed.

Yeah, so I guess it’s fine to work on something based on ‘master’ if
that’s more convenient for you.  Eventually all this will be merged one
way or the other anyway.  :-)

> So while I certainly agree that the ultimate goal should be to
> eventually eliminate the "loongson" branch, I expect it will be some
> time before we can do that.

Seems to me that the main (or only?) condition that must hold before the
branch can be merged in ‘master’ is that it must not trigger a rebuild
for the other arches.

Then, even if it’s still WIP, it won’t harm if it’s in ‘master’, and it
may get more attention.

Thanks,
Ludo’.