Leo Famulari writes:
> People have presented some good reasons for keeping at least some level
> of i686 support.
>
> But unfortunately, 3rd party channels cannot be one of them, whether or
> not they follow the FSDG.
>
> Of course, we won't deliberately make their work more difficult, and
> may
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Richard Sent wrote:
> For consideration, I know at least one 3rd-party channel relies on being able
> to create a multiarch container containing i686 packages. I'll refrain from
> linking since it packages nonfree software. This is an example where keepin
Hi AVP,
Congratulations on your contributions. As I understand it you'll need to ask
"three committers who could vouch for you", and they'll need to email the
maintainers alias: . When you have those sponsors you also email the
guix-maintainers alias.
The details of the process are here:
http
>> In terms of side-stepping the question, do we have enough x86_64
>> hardware to continue to support i686 without degrading support for
>> x86_64? (I ask this seriously, although I'm pretty certain the answer is
>> we're well covered on that front.)
>
>Support does not just mean dedicating build
Efraim Flashner writes:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:51:49PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> For a long time we've not been able to build linux-libre on i686-linux
>> because the source unpacking process runs out of memory.
>
> I believe if we limit the unpacking process to not more than 8 cores we
