Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> writes:
> Firstly, I'd like to mention that we, in general, have a minimum system > requirement of 2GB of RAM, and IIRC there aren't a lot of armhf boards > out there which have that much. We do have a difference between building > natively and cross building / building with '--target'. This really needs to be lowered IMHO. 2GB being the minimum should be treated as a bug. > I'd like to comment on armhf for a moment. My memory is a but rusty, but > I'm pretty sure that in December of 2021 mesa was bumped from 21.2.x to > 21.3.x, and at that time it stopped building on/for armhf. I noticed in > May of 2022 (5 months later) and got the build working again. That we > went 5 months without anyone saying anything in bug reports that mesa > wasn't building shows that either everyone who is using it is using > software that doesn't use mesa, or we really don't have any armhf-linux > users. I'm not advocating dropping the architecture, but it does feel > like we're already at a best-effort level with it. As far as the pieces > needed for bootstrapping aarch64 software (go and probably others), > those get built anyway as needed by aarch64, so there's no worry about > losing support for those software bits. Personally I'm not using Guix on my armhf machines *because* armhf is buggy. I would certainly love to use it, but right now postmarketOS is sooo much better on armhf. It would be great to be in a position where I could submit bug reports from armhf but just doing it on i686 is already a challenge.
