Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes:
> Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Note that mesa and libdrm did not build any drivers at all on armhf
>> until recent commits on 'staging'. I tried cross-compiling libdrm
>> to update etnaviv symbols instead, but failed some packages before it.
>>
>> So currently it's a trial-and-error process to find flags to make mesa
>> build on armhf. This means armhf users are currently unable to build
>> *any* graphical packages, actually. Given how expensive evaluations
>> are, I figured we might as well deal with it on 'master'.
>
> Thanks for explaining. I think this should have been dealt with on the
> 'staging' branch before merging into 'master'. This is a pretty bad
> situation now for anyone using Guix on armhf.
Didn't we already talk about this when you merged an earlier 'staging'
branch into 'master' that contained a major GNOME upgrade that was
untested, and broke GNOME desktops for all platforms?
Do you think it should be acceptable to merge a major branch into
'master' where *all* graphical packages are broken on armhf?
Do the Guix maintainers think that this is acceptable behavior?
If so, where does that leave armhf users?
Mark
