From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: 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.) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:38:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87k1qa192c.fsf@elephly.net> References: <20180702101757.22792.51026@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20180702101758.97A6020543@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <8736x1r1g0.fsf@netris.org> <877emdwm0f.fsf@fastmail.com> <87efgknn2v.fsf@netris.org> <87in5veaao.fsf@gnu.org> <871scin5bs.fsf_-_@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44138) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faxud-0005vr-FU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 02:38:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faxub-00064S-Kz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 02:38:43 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21014) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1faxub-000614-D0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 02:38:41 -0400 In-reply-to: <871scin5bs.fsf_-_@netris.org> 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+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Mark, > 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. I don=E2=80=99t think this is true. > 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. It=E2=80=99s neither about =E2=80=9Cmoving forward=E2=80=9D at all costs no= r about =E2=80=9Cfull speed=E2=80=9D; while we are generally moving forward, it=E2=80=99s hardly at full speed. = The last core-updates merge was blocked for months, but it contained critical fixes that had to be worked around in other branches, which was an untenable position given the number of developers. FWIW, I=E2=80=99m using a i686 machine with 2GB RAM myself, and I did test = the core-updates things on that machine (as far as the software is concerned that I=E2=80=99m using). I was rather surprised by the GRUB bug, to be hon= est. I do agree with your laments about a lack of popularity of non-x86_64 systems and thus developers, but I do think this has been getting better with the work this community has done to support Guix for the aarch64 and armhf architectures, and by adding aarch64/armhf build servers to the build farm. We can and should do more of this, but it won=E2=80=99t ha= ppen by decree. One thing that would help, in my opinion, is to purchase hardware and make it available to interested developers and/or join these new machines to the build farm. We would need to come to an agreement about at least these things: * what exact system configurations do we want? * where would these systems be hosted? * how many do we need / can we afford to buy and pay hosting fees for? The last time this has come up the discussion kinda tapered out. It would be good if someone or a group of people would volunteer to take this on and drive this project to its conclusion. -- Ricardo