On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:57:10AM +0200, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Indeed, as far as I can remember we've always updated SBCL directly on
> master, because it's one of those exceptions.

Alright, I didn't know that. Let's keep the status quo in that case.
Maybe we should mention this kind of exception to the guidelines in the
manual. I want to revisit those guidelines after the upcoming release.

> What do you mean with "coordinate it in advance"?  Is there a better way
> to handle the process?

For example, we could make an sbcl-updates branch and build that in its
own Cuirass job. It makes it a little easier to schedule and manage the
computing resources used for a task. But if these packages are actually
cheap to build, then it's probably not necessary.

> Otherwise I can remove aarch64 from the list of supported systems in the
> SBCL package.

We try to avoid limiting the utility of packages just to work around
problems with the build farm (SBCL does build on real aarch64 hardware),
so it would be ideal if we could avoid this. I don't really know a good
way to deal with this particular problem.