From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id wE+/JgxVqWYvsgAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:03:08 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id wE+/JgxVqWYvsgAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:03:08 +0200 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=MrhaHfsu; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=dsFPQrGl; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1722373388; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=s8Mh7LPFTD8GAfrTT1WGGCCwp4LUf+yq032Zp/lZtNg=; b=cCzfk2iE8LqEd0QSpWyloziPWANh50y7uwtO/5lvqisphQQ3QiuriO8EBuIfKPywvpEH+u ArMRmqJNW3OTkbRWK9l/p3/OPuBeTLwC5aNZST81/PZ3VkgdmlHESFPAE8vuy3VXoCkN+N 1OD//P1QgqrOM5Jyju9ykxs+9rzAVwh1bnskziQJfHT5AaPDlZhrqRBYzjBY1GlOZWd4dj A3H62ImeNmQXy6xDGv0VrBOK5iFMs+ItirjIH5BL1TUXFCbMR1BVI6Eya8uuYvjd0enIzV mxy7cJxnbjUFLPl67kzFsRx7g8+eNQ4ncQL7gPtJo1wX4Fxfox688LoRzLeo/w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1722373388; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=GacYxkuMoXeMVkTfgq4rfsEgvZnz3tHgFCpBVSDMDL/yzrf6EFfgjM7p/IkZdiiWO4OHsR 22OCm2DqYZ2VxeHSmq2X84QBGO7XC/k5SjAjvuqZcscKpnGzRNDEWfv6sUVgRXiwHm67b8 wPFR7lq72JmU7lnx2ExDETiTXpSp0Ck2/6LW5YCJRz3d6PkV8rA+exdnKIN5Fc7jywC6QA p4vmrPKqbEUAevBakQV0s2GCqs3zQC3k+wHpF011AfHc7RUtr73Q3/OPhLnirZPkoSo/Qy tAHPYX6HuBiTDcETY0HaMwi2pnSgfy/XWSRQoNYpeHkkXUi1YUZ9YdvVQl130g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=MrhaHfsu; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=dsFPQrGl; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5DC62623 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:03:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzi-0006Yy-Ue; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzc-0006Xl-Gz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:49 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzc-0001Sv-85 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=s8Mh7LPFTD8GAfrTT1WGGCCwp4LUf+yq032Zp/lZtNg=; b=MrhaHfsuWxow+JI4i0f6+0CAE8NHCSadHoeuQeaL3dSCDu0yBgsO0rIDTAhjK9TlbUwPLeEYcuri2yOKgF5UXZx2+6FU+kxNZ8XAfJtI8uDHER4uUuQ7wMIQXYAjoeSC7xvg9PCvWsdgtPYKSDoGt4zTxv0cQm9RWP0YzYie3+ME3/rMDgErImblK/T66W45X58TCEFZmGIUIkgFoag14K1YE5wCGuak38x5lbtaKU2IpXhX/1b2xc6snVOEhP2AKx2O5JF1BUwxA9XarPs7o95zyhBFvXZBfeLPqfTpG0SyCe6VTE70lg+zdPeA+pjERSA29moDGZ2l8DSmWV+ZLA==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzq-0008Vf-I0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:03:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#67535: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9?= Batista Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:03:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 67535 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , Leo Famulari Received: via spool by 67535-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B67535.172237337532699 (code B ref 67535); Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:03:02 +0000 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 21:02:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48626 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzj-0008VK-GX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:55 -0400 Received: from mx0.riseup.net ([198.252.153.6]:39848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzf-0008V3-3V for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:54 -0400 Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WYSNQ4nJYz9wgd; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:02:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1722373350; bh=wsURrd86lh/DYdaXyyS6SVUW+gWLJzYC9nNb1iU1qiI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dsFPQrGlyFVb91WIevcR94JKr5rfKoTuOtMFFuxzH6gXtHwU/D0AjI25BE6YRYHsA lHatNVkX9ggvOO1PTik7gBAq+snP2Xptv6WDogf/Bmr6euMuZAME7o3YCYI0PfTHkY k+E9neKiLTRN+I9EuMFM8//x4yToszKq3tDl1xe8= X-Riseup-User-ID: 05A022684E5DEDACABAC5FD520C28E3EA6E025807C8AF7FD2E22BD451168270B Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WYSNP28zjzFvrH; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:02:23 -0300 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9?= Batista Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Queue-Id: AA5DC62623 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -9.96 X-Spam-Score: -9.96 X-TUID: ix7BzXvvoaLm Hi! seg 29 jul 2024 ās 14:33:59 (1722274439), rekado@elephly.net enviou: > Efraim Flashner writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:51:49PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > >> For a long time we've not been able to build linux-libre on i686-linux > >> because the source unpacking process runs out of memory. > > > > I believe if we limit the unpacking process to not more than 8 cores we > > can avoid that problem. > > > >> I'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. > >> > >> Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to > >> officially remove support for it? > > > > Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware > > supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia > > suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I > > believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, > > that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 > > years old at least. > > FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation > of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only > user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting > the architecture for my sake. For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. Most software that I use on that machine still builds and runs fine, with the occasional hiccup. But even though I use the arch, I also don't feel particularly inclined to fix the occasional errors and can understand if people here decide to drop support to it.