Hello, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis:
>> 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’t think this is true. What is true is that most Guix users use x86_64 primarily. But there’s also a lot of interest in ARM. Guix doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and I think the situation of non-x86_64 support in Guix is just as good or bad as in other free software projects. We have fewer packages available on non-x86_64 architectures, but that’s in large part due to upstream packages not supporting those architectures in the first place. I agree this is sad, but repeating it doesn’t help address it. > 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’t happen > by decree. Agreed. > 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. I agree! If someone cares about ARM, for instance, now’s the time to tell us what we should buy and to offer to help out with hosting/sysadmin. That would be immensely helpful in maintaining non-x86_64 up to speed. Thanks, Ludo’.
