Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:43 PM Suhail Singh <suhailsingh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Suhail Singh <suhailsingh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > The issue, as I see it, is the time commitment required from the >> > release-team. >> >> Correction, the issues (IMO) are (in no particular order): >> 1. the timespan (several weeks) >> 2. uncertainty around total effort >> 3. amount of manual effort involved >> >> It's unclear which of the three above is the rate-limiting-step. > > There is also access to hardware. From doc/release.org: > > "Steps #2 and #3 require you to have offloading set up so you can > build for all the supported architectures. For instance, if you’re > running this on an x86_64 machine, you should have ~armhf-linux~, > ~aarch64-linux~ and ~powerpc64le-linux~ machines in your > =/etc/guix/machines.scm=. Transparent emulation via QEMU has shown > limits (such as causing test suite failures); real hardware is a > must." Indeed, at least for the person running 'make release'. > The project download page no longer lists PowerPC, but powerpc64le is > still included among the 1.4.0 binaries. Can the armhf release > artifacts be built on aarch64? That fails for some packages but might > work for releases. I think the Guix binary release can be built from aarch64; we've never had true armhf offload machines, as far as I know. -- Thanks, Maxim
