Re: On the quest for a new release model

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Greg,

Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:43 PM Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@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