From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e7qi4-0006Lz-83 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e7qhz-0004Ds-9b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e7qhz-0004De-5u for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e7qhy-00014F-El for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:33:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#29000] Ungrafting glibc? Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <674f248fb17fb1ee274a7fb0bc91ff0287f1f923.1508957767.git.leo@famulari.name> <20171025190428.GA14432@jasmine.lan> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:32:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20171025190428.GA14432@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:04:28 -0400") Message-ID: <87efppee0i.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 29000@debbugs.gnu.org Hello! Leo Famulari skribis: > It would be nice to ungraft glibc soon, in my opinion. Yes. I think if you do that in =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99, we can star= t building it; it=E2=80=99s long overdue anyway. How does that sound? > Grafting the entire distribution causes some user experience issues that > many of us are used to, but that are not really that great, especially > for new users. Honestly, I feel that this bad user experience is a shame, and fixing it is among my priorities. It should be possible to have grafts without their current negative effects on the UI. > The issue is build farm capacity. Yes, though even with infinite build farm capacity, we wouldn=E2=80=99t wan= t to force people to rebuild/redownload the world too often. That said=E2=80=A6 > I wonder how long it takes to rebuild everything for Intel-compatible > systems on berlin.guixsd.org? Good question. An interesting project would be to measure latency between push date and substitute availability date, for instance. berlin is pretty powerful now, so now we should see whether =E2=80=98guix offload=E2=80=99 incurs too much overhead. > Maybe fast enough that rebuilding the world for this change would not > disrupt Guix development too much... except that rebuilding the world > for armhf would take a very long time, during which we could not be > building the other regular changes for armhf. Yes, that=E2=80=99s another problem, but I hope we=E2=80=99ll alleviate it = soon by buying ARM machines. Ludo=E2=80=99.