Hey,
> How frequently does that machine become unreachable? > > Its uptime right now is “only” 51 days, but it seems to have been > reliably building things so far (surprisingly so!). Oh so it must be available from the Cuirass point of view but not from the guix offload point of view. I'll try to fix it today. > In Cuirass, we should arrange to support partial evaluations or > per-system evaluations so that a single missing offload machine doesn’t > cause the whole evaluation to fail. We can define a guix specification for x86_64-linux, i686-linux and aarch64-linux and a different one for powerpc64le-linux. That can be done really quickly. That can break some mechanisms relying on the fact that the guix specification name is "guix" though. > That’s radical, but maybe that’s the most reasonable option. > > How about a plan like this: until next Thursday, we try to address the > infrastructure issues discussed above to estimate feasibility. Then we > decide on the way forward. WDYT? Alright, let's try that :). I agree that it is a pity not to release for those architectures but on the other hand, we cannot offer fresh substitutes reliably for them. The recent outages of ci.guix.gnu.org have shown once again that the infrastructure is maybe one of the most important Guix aspect. Without it, Guix is almost unusable, in particular on architectures for which it's hard to find powerful hardware. Given the limited amount of people willing to help for powerpc64le-linux and armhf-linux and the limited amount of hardware resources available for those, I think it could be reasonable to focus on a smaller set of architectures and provide stronger guarantees on those in term of substitutes availability. But let's discuss that again next week depending on our progress. Thanks, Mathieu
