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.)

Hello, On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:04:31AM +0200, Jonathan Brielmaier wrote: > I just want to bring POWER up as a freedom-respecting architecture. > Especially the TalosII from RaptorCS[0]. I know that guix does not work > on ppc64le yet, but I'm working for it :) They tend to be quite > expensive,

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.)

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello Kei, > > Kei Kebreau skribis: > >> I am interested in helping with non-x86_64 issues. Particularly, helping >> with i686-related changes should be just a change in workflow, but I'm >> interested in obtaining freedom-respecting non-x86 hardware (or a

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.)

Hello all, of course I can all but agree that support for "exotic" hardware is very desirable, especially since, as Mark pointed out, we would like it to become more mainstream! On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:38:19AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > One thing that would help, in my opinion, is to purch

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.)

On 7/5/18 12:32 AM, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> I'm open to suggestions. Do you see any solution to the problem of how >> to attract more non-x86_64 users, given our current policies? >> >> Thanks, >>Mark > > I am interested in helping with non-x86_64 issues. Particularly, helping > with i

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.)

Hi again Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >> >>> The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the >>> only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are >>> frequently left in a bad spot. T

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.)

Mark H Weaver skribis: > Another problem is that Guile 2.2's compiler has become so heavy that > it's nearly unbearable to use on slower hardware. Simply running "make" > in my Guix git checkout after updating on my mips-based Yeeloong is so > slow that I'm in the habit of letting it run overnig

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.)

Hello, Ricardo Wurmus 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 Gu

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.)

Hello Kei, Kei Kebreau skribis: > I am interested in helping with non-x86_64 issues. Particularly, helping > with i686-related changes should be just a change in workflow, but I'm > interested in obtaining freedom-respecting non-x86 hardware (or at least > using a virtual machine as close as pos

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.)

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’t think this is true. > When I suggest that the community would not take certa

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.)

Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Ludovic, > > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >> >>> The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the >>> only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are >>> frequently left in a bad spot. Th

RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.)

Hi Ludovic, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the >> only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are >> frequently left in a bad spot. This makes it increasingly unlikely t

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello, > > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Marius Bakke writes: > > [...] > >>> I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy) >>> workaround was put in place and discussed in >>> . The meat of it can be found i

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Hello, Mark H Weaver skribis: > Marius Bakke writes: [...] >> I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy) >> workaround was put in place and discussed in >> . The meat of it can be found in (guix >> build-system meson): >> >> ;; XXX Patch

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the > only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are > frequently left in a bad spot. This makes it increasingly unlikely that > we'll ever gain a significant number of non

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Marius Bakke skribis: > I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy) > workaround was put in place and discussed in > . The meat of it can be found in (guix > build-system meson): > > ;; XXX PatchELF fails to build on armhf, so we skip > ;

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Hi Marius, Marius Bakke writes: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: >> >>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging >>> in repository guix. >>> >>> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f >>> Author: Marius Bakke >>> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Hi Marius, Marius Bakke writes: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: >> >>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging >>> in repository guix. >>> >>> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f >>> Author: Marius Bakke >>> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Marius, > > mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: > >> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging >> in repository guix. >> >> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f >> Author: Marius Bakke >> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +0200 >> >> build-system/mes

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Marius, > > mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: > >> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging >> in repository guix. >> >> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f >> Author: Marius Bakke >> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +0200 >> >> build-system/mes

Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

Hi Marius, mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: > mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging > in repository guix. > > commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f > Author: Marius Bakke > Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +0200 > > build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phas