From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:37:48 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#67535 <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#67535 <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux Reply-To: bug#67535 <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:37:48 +0000 retitle 67535 ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i= 686-linux reassign 67535 guix submitter 67535 Leo Famulari severity 67535 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 29 15:55:53 2023 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Nov 2023 20:55:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51600 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1r8Rb6-0008Kx-RC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:53 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:58070) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1r8Rb4-0008Kd-6H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:50 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r8Raj-0003rr-M9 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:30 -0500 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r8Rab-0007Mc-Rk for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:26 -0500 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568193200B0F; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=mesmtp; t=1701291317; x=1701377717; bh=ZU8iYeEpOauLYwDX6b0Wfq bdvLuegpJ8yPNPL8uuf98=; b=B86ef2TQDuQIarwwBUbCtutBNm6gW3oJF3saJM GCd3vYu4//iWhWWJmAVzEJhJPVp1LiOhKPj752LH9H0rkyUm+YGTidXOH8Qg7Xs8 uEBIhAtN5mhqOtd8t+DMdbwVIOAC7oeznbktpkwlLTxbIMWYMP/xcT5fx6Iwa2z6 rv8CI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1701291317; x=1701377717; bh=ZU8iYeEpOauLYwDX6b0WfqbdvLuegpJ8yPN PL8uuf98=; b=VvSXLfnlptDPH+0X2dJLapXYfK0koIsEkgDg7OAD3xAyhIOPCM6 hH1BHMRJmftWDS719JwPtLbp7idd3eY0/gVJKLtS40owDy3t67bnkHp5/mKwD3st oBuSATRujO1yIPLK9VfhOuQ07DwX95+MK1K4G9+BL/yz8A6iS4SzS7PuRTuaDVto 8Rm0EYmT0yjpnYMlDBxsDU8z/TMrQ/31QZaXvzqV/upj734CWGFJbWCX8Wh0EjQM 4jhsOvpTlcu4smlup0vA8DYcdNvPbKdYKcqNM8twlG9YISuhh3FM9UncBgI2GWqw /bGZdTSt7zE2fT6sS+UomN64MV+Wb8BD9Zg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrudeihedgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfggtggusehttdertd dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghr ihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuieduieejudffvdfhjedvgedvhefggf ejvdevkeeffeelfeekueeijeduveetudenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrg hmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:55:15 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.19; envelope-from=leo@famulari.name; helo=wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) I see that ci.guix.gnu.org's builders seem to run out of memory while building kernel headers for i686-linux: ------ xz: (stdin): Cannot allocate memory /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: /gnu/store/536ifp75wv8i1kb1k0szv7zd57ygpg0n-linux-libre-6.5.13-guix.tar.xz: Wrote only 2048 of 10240 bytes /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: Child returned status 1 /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now ------ https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/2736161/details From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Dec 06 07:25:35 2023 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Dec 2023 12:25:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39014 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rAqy7-00070S-9F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:25:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]:43213) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rAqy5-00070F-6G for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:25:34 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40b2ad4953cso4587765e9.0 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Dec 2023 04:25:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1701865515; x=1702470315; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=00+RozjzSeoXVSUfeiwttSDqnB999i05azIu4XwCN3U=; b=hbfgZ2KliSqQruJn1WaV+DXKaJEyJ4V2W/kjLy/TS2MjZfH+/raCli90wy4AdAkYhb x/ABQE3yL5YNuHXS9On6ZNEAmm9PLH9SQAUV1s1zTrb34YWdiDTbLiaQFYbfNjBz/hIZ 1YJvrGyYLUIbs6YjHHBf2342af4I/u5wnt2rjows8ocPQjJrTeyRInEOrgIsZm5+342X T4rcgfdEe9pj2vys0lgHtQktxygh+Jr8wp9J1MKHf92Lx3ApjuIK+ij+dHARE1+P9/x1 yCQpLluYUf0M3SuRu4AAsSr8JNg+svw3SwSPQTIksNZSkOy+tMQuXhf/1g8rLBNL+FXX NDmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701865515; x=1702470315; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=00+RozjzSeoXVSUfeiwttSDqnB999i05azIu4XwCN3U=; b=RUxSvkTiofKgl4eorMslOS2OzbjkkBzGWk3wnBEqU+p1eJqCyngqZAdtI/Ricu3WJl ckOVXBgzUauT8+S/00Nx+VXTrPWY0xIcW72gbN/tNNzeje3rxrsSRBaNulN/tIgWYES3 eqO7DKw+oxU4FljMMOSl/EmbbX6uImECK8Dqn8iJGwvYbmiba966LYVYA6ktT33j4Qf2 7SOGwmjd8IqfgBO+AzSNmVU4C5PWgVqmX2+baksOEU3BPEAlkEr97V1kZ6eEGvBGrwiB j1rczjxwJvOY9YtKUuAHjCxNpCbSUH9i2ikj272BeLFz94rf7gWCYVhru55UEDlOpTZT l/qg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyePI/XF94TnDrXpJn0X1crOo0xtQnZDYEfp3/tu7+LNGm7KlA8 yAkxKMP5HKF3/2b60ILMA2puwtJsa7kbVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGaiiUpjnW2ARYcO/dsPSNBaGJ4VcU9H8GctTLxWDFXDNRryYMKh9fa1XtuB7QHd8N2RF1PPA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4e90:b0:40b:5e56:7b68 with SMTP id f16-20020a05600c4e9000b0040b5e567b68mr1524190wmq.177.1701865515375; Wed, 06 Dec 2023 04:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([188.120.129.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x10-20020a5d490a000000b003333c06fa79sm11202881wrq.71.2023.12.06.04.25.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Dec 2023 04:25:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:25:13 +0200 From: Efraim Flashner To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Efraim Flashner , Leo Famulari , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K+ORjC0lRTC+/CM3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x41AAE7DCCA3D8351 X-PGP-Key: https://flashner.co.il/~efraim/efraim_flashner.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: 67535@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) --K+ORjC0lRTC+/CM3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:55:15PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > I see that ci.guix.gnu.org's builders seem to run out of memory while > building kernel headers for i686-linux: >=20 > ------ > xz: (stdin): Cannot allocate memory > /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: /gnu/store/= 536ifp75wv8i1kb1k0szv7zd57ygpg0n-linux-libre-6.5.13-guix.tar.xz: Wrote only= 2048 of 10240 bytes > /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: Child retur= ned status 1 > /gnu/store/ns71xxkb3fzr37934bim9l8xiv68kc7w-tar-1.34/bin/tar: Error is no= t recoverable: exiting now > ------ >=20 > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/2736161/details This looks like more of the too-many-cores while decompressing tarballs issues we've had in the past on i686-linux. Can we change that phase to use a maximum of 4 cores or would that cause everything to rebuild? --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=A8=D7=A0=D7=A9=D7=9C=D7=A4 = =D7=9D=D7=99=D7=A8=D7=A4=D7=90 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --K+ORjC0lRTC+/CM3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAmVwaCkACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1Hs3BAAtAJDmoD0/eB78MAzyRvr//MPu362BbB1jLZIXMRxnsSC2phX5+/ylUdv 7LCPM8MqukBgCV3AIcuJSaldzVzJ/WgSlKLumcjY26qd9WyO8uco6NUpR5oyvakM 1HdB2e2kaEZORFmCHT/XVTyMZITkTtqpWZ7z/A5m308GaXjl753ALw4gDv++2hYg Lf8EH4wdetMNTaAoJpusdoIOO2gBLsPziw56VEBr/lsc5kD0xzkQnf5K66LcK+Kx Rc3ntDl3bwn8B5Jfai1jahy9YG2+LMNY7luv0FZIlz9izwY2nl8bSx8qKxmMgtmm AfZh1btNpfnptXaUjyAtdHpI+eI2bpmRAEiJHolr6O6bS832GXnn4tbmqPkW0Vsw mUKS5d1tVXrqBouKWVmyw5yMV31AbkBqLvovnNUHBDzWGLY1ZG+Y3rU6myEnjUnk vbgrKbbn9Tf/qdHoTZ1CLYjT66fxAa0y+sQbTQyjB0q8c1UDb7HgacsU6Axrc3PP 9yc5DpKtH0VqHbukbZW/bTOGpCS5P56hXJ9QcpWtnptw3NBIogNHGzBQfOyaSSV7 qrJVg8nKbXqv03p3d3l4pJ8SfJ18Znod3XKWy8CD5OXcVXyynGJ93HXWiM+GZvlG KjxnH3CLRne7RjxsFtq/CMPurRnxMi95xlrCFoTUgePhwTmY+Ks= =qSRI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K+ORjC0lRTC+/CM3-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 26 14:52:10 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jul 2024 18:52:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40045 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sXQ30-0002xQ-1U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:52:10 -0400 Received: from fhigh5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.156]:50723) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sXQ2w-0002wv-Sb for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:52:08 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686A61140142; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:51:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=mesmtp; t=1722019912; x= 1722106312; bh=mrmRZy4SbB0NkJzO0xEe/MHsxtnYzWg18ZOqum1xcCk=; b=O f/gqVP5UE2pJGQDJGgVaUrMXhFMeP6BY6dam6O0CoMpQOgiUHOPjEggNIzEFVKD1 6m437DlUztfgogA+pwG/dNZeDl3ehvJ6uuPM1R2MaFcFXrRG+N5VFyw/Mjc3iFxs fpdaDY8OsS77XNQ1pRZcaxpCGbCrgXl4kPHSrPIJL4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1722019912; x=1722106312; bh=mrmRZy4SbB0NkJzO0xEe/MHsxtnY zWg18ZOqum1xcCk=; b=CK1URDDT1yxJRCsV3l4x5RnG7mRBVEATCmn1OMo2/W+R SCsZ/+aVsp9mqfFGBO5DLuDM1AOwqc1K0n2ipmitAywIyHLE/Jg0fdqyaF1J2AvC yMFtC3TZW1nDjSHkSmlW1RxI8e+k2vRaUI/OkyVGycWJeDIBz9BujM0n5KKQnGdR 3sy+cW0uE+hV9IWhxWT98b1/3LO2ec2szgKuzJi+xq4q8lktCj7CELyqdMWVFh2Q 7FjiEVPl8f52gLNvfrjJMukE3tU6KNZaAzOrABRv51wUvGE23ny0fklDGSr+5V/0 H6a98r6wMNwaG2Qrp+JjcaDUT1/tIQ2zm5UP4h+BZg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrieehgddufeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttd ertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhl rghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeetheeuvdeivdelueeukefhtdeihe dtgefhvddvlefhudejudeiheelfeevteeuhfenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghose hfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedt X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:51:49 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: 67535@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to officially remove support for it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 26 16:18:03 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jul 2024 20:18:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40107 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sXRO7-000509-DB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:18:03 -0400 Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.22]:21735) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sXRO3-0004zc-8S for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:18:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1722025063; x=1722284263; bh=CiNqwf7u/8S7Wp9kUkNsU2P7MUjtffaN1G1a2mSvUyw=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=ZUn9g22mkpFssRlty1QjV5qWSRfqt1cMFgvX299D5YvaHBE5wN3Uym5JxWgJPRl/z pcSHBUFzxW5wr6egGTc7IRI3UwY+lMY+tOyH9aXBaxzRNafrDeWAJ2g7KDFNmgNVYq PMQFMhoq0wuGvU6lK4P1zCLYdVUNW2HaZI6VG3AhDxXYufiBfzt+UvQA8QzBT4Wunu ES4J2g0f3E85vdYwZXUG2BScmZPshUc59uaEvlyrWeGnVnx1+oFJOZsJ39l0YEPbpH VURRNyozLbAvPTebobZpXgg54dGNYqjHaK1OFQPr5sEuJhhyPCqcmz3XpXc5d70+KM D3yzb07ASi2AA== Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:17:40 +0000 To: Leo Famulari From: Kaelyn Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 34709329:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 08bd6d47108e08195caee487381b40fb3529c134 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi, On Friday, July 26th, 2024 at 11:51 AM, Leo Famulari wr= ote: >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > I'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. >=20 > Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to > officially remove support for it? I'm not sure about i686-linux's usage for a complete system (and I know sev= eral other distributions either already have or have plans to drop support = for booting 32-bit x86 systems), but at least the "multi-lib" portion of i6= 86-linux packages are needed for the wine and wine64 packages (and their "-= staging" variants) on x86_64-linux systems. Cheers, Kaelyn From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 28 17:51:04 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jul 2024 21:51:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44412 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYBnE-00053v-CM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:51:04 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]:47434) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYBnA-00053S-2L for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:51:02 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b5f46191b5so14294516d6.3 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:50:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1722203387; x=1722808187; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zrt73k61TFJbcLfdX4Og/G2E1CN2dRXb4OQ+xeZYis8=; b=OgkoUUCTKldysSFq7zeTaBz61FYu+7z5FwvzsJ8hnUHmSEZJlZkvjIsSH5LpQI7HJu B79miRC9f1a7yOqRnlFREsh3cmJmm+DyKk4lmAxtWwR0Srz+NHDQ/hhn/TVkWQEncsnh tbd9MTU27jfmV4nLIYBzhVfmJtru66pRgF+lu7Fz5KM1l/3iN4BemTEplxfwZrOjrgld njZ5/cLeVwL/ZaFCReSyzxpXeOa62iLSjrT6to9f8ZJi+7FW1mcQAABHc2v3xYBKTbJK 7GjB2pytjuzWWZoPFfoq+RbYIke+Us8wjSFWMKRU4SQ8Mihq/4K8JoH46MzF6EG47igr F5ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722203387; x=1722808187; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zrt73k61TFJbcLfdX4Og/G2E1CN2dRXb4OQ+xeZYis8=; b=Mh09XGo/Vctz6vgu9Dpm2nV7cF9nLTBKBNyTv/9kY/nejscg+tSFV4iMAQM2bhYfUy xJGetwls9m//8+5xXxrkmBXnyPkwW0HEWLrJGGlbWKU+YziJulz2sGgr0wRXYEzU2vdR tRk55CjngPHnOpp2AdWUqIaBXKTAYro905Y71BsTUT0GaKot4CGyVlrs7If8+t4dADFU sXLa565By1Aakc15f4hSxGVEAXtD7JFbblTcqKx4/27YXDKX1o2gXGl7lKOdO54bHFHv kWsPb+RTo2X2WX/pgD/h38VBVeifFbUoIWXV0Q5sSMjfEmjrZ7sPgWha1+aOmEykU3y4 8y1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz4oj9edtJ/5DRAsvSytsT0eMfFyv/l08rA73WsdYi/BMEoUb0w aBNTLmgB1Oq9kbv+5NGEE37C0rOkiNmK0uI3902Du1OTMhUI/EQCKIC8Lg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFxkOO72GkHQ93VqGlQH7CnvmYEWAjHpSAtz61fIGdhnWRdPwuIZbftZOArFnGa18oysT01pg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:202c:b0:6b5:e099:4d69 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6bb55a22002mr89416356d6.26.1722203387413; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ool-ad039216.dyn.optonline.net. [173.3.146.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-7a1edaf5169sm152225985a.76.2024.07.28.14.49.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:49:45 +0300 From: Efraim Flashner To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Leo Famulari , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-devel@gnu.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Yur0IxwG1OAuI9Jl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: x-ms-reactions: disallow X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x41AAE7DCCA3D8351 X-PGP-Key: https://flashner.co.il/~efraim/efraim_flashner.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Yur0IxwG1OAuI9Jl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 can avoid that problem. > I'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. >=20 > Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to > officially remove support for it? Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 years old at least. Perhaps a different question, what software _available in Guix_ is supported by i686 that isn't supported by x86_64? 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.) --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=A8=D7=A0=D7=A9=D7=9C=D7=A4 = =D7=9D=D7=99=D7=A8=D7=A4=D7=90 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --Yur0IxwG1OAuI9Jl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAmamvO4ACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1G6HxAAwr7Kv6z13z5VYoFeZSAKl0pUYlu1EOvUJHUJ6zFPUufUMxIOlXzCc0ix qdRHeJcMlx5p/wgcyqpFCikaPJpHl6ZkE+iiPw/VGEx5+DBwQHdQoG2WIWpqL0VG JmmdIEJeFH6v3NGnQ7jG3V4G7wXW0mFSR0z5fsjQ5VqTWaNWHmWl6bzksXneJA6J 0wk0uaTbYNtNxVXTBPtGWmS5dxGgULgAEXCXo567KVftY0roUtyOO5mwIkmHnp16 +tXCtjOwwSO+L4k1SRib1ie7joHYcnltusk/fi+jdr5/GzJUfgUmekcj9Hxm2VxK 2Cqy+fZx+yGlAEKFhzQNwWNc7D0hFZxj9cAMHQAro3PXieBP9jOhihEE+sSYUxa9 Aj/pOklhZlPHxYSuzrm+5tCx9dBWoK2i0tOzG0VY178xOWNmguJfpyWudzdoIGVj j6xWpBHrL0OJ5OiW1/vQB0Um58ROmZPOb+VWMzeZ614omZwTXSfOOrG5aCRxg+I6 wcjOJGOFJdOaTU7/pNVJJDSdwXgPxHucygVbSLvMTHxTVnXHXmg/NtrIyhgRC8h+ WEkxce7AVw9MxRT3PfgaiDGlhRHkYO9mRmcI76uL/hiOGwGbQir404YhcHBx421K HYPUYZGYVXjuVyBCtR2WQJ34oPjXCPCTov0hSezbIP9zrVAwOUY= =8+ZS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Yur0IxwG1OAuI9Jl-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 08:34:36 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jul 2024 12:34:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45088 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYPaG-0002Yz-4G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:34:36 -0400 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21180) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYPaC-0002Yp-Cx for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:34:35 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1722256445; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=U6ued6c6HA1udx6j8FCqmrCbJk1W/cIZROvIBJQSDU6NtQDdaxqKqi04Ga6GIf2WRmowUd7pWxy5HdscHBV3x7vPYeAYp6flG1K4ByWoboCLFsarSyEcSrW+cz59hMPajnOfdFyS80Wt3rSxJbQCzoBD/C8E6z10fZVpRLbciUI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1722256445; h=Content-Type:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=63e/4zq4XaktUsgVeECjTu9aTOzxFZDfoc4nxQ3WnRI=; b=OHqoXRcEhymlSXU8iMX+70qrS6IBuxZYH8eypB123HbsLsnWUKGXXtb1xgPd60NyowpEod7MyUn44+oi67cHxGJQVIZhQG216BMTJhM1QoFPJh64xudzcANMlgbyzJcFL2L9W3MNu0h9h2I96q6hiH/YJrcuSvbyeArCxrzLxEc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1722256445; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=63e/4zq4XaktUsgVeECjTu9aTOzxFZDfoc4nxQ3WnRI=; b=R1q6vE/mILarS4qhU1WDdxefG5CvuGncKT7fAjQT5RvvOcCeijHkMrmu5uTCDdjx 4qCM7cqbhLxIDE2teB6eQZQXtb2sf8h+5l04bR6Up6sXCsPJv+kEGyTZJNn5XVAMWKQ HBJhT/mqxWOLU1pf7+ZasKZ2Wajx5pxLlYLc5/LM= Received: by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1722256443503244.06382918534075; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:34:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Ricardo Wurmus To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Efraim Flashner's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:49:45 +0300") References: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:33:59 +0200 Message-ID: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) 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 > can avoid that problem. > >> I'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. >> >> Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to >> officially remove support for it? > > Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware > supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia > suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I > believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, > that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 > years old at least. FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting the architecture for my sake. We have quite a few package failures on i686-linux, often because of failing precision tests. It may not be worth attempting to fix these problems, e.g. for R, because it is very unlikely that people use R on i686 machines. > 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 cycles to doomed builds, but also dedicating people's time to wade through hundreds of failures for little gain. Perhaps our time is better spent supporting architectures that still have a future. -- Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 11:01:03 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jul 2024 15:01:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46149 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYRrz-0006RR-94 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:01:03 -0400 Received: from mail-108-mta180.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.180]:44599) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYRrx-0006Qu-FM for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:01:02 -0400 Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta180.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 190ff02132c00017a3.001 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:00:44 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 58a5c8e652244b1b983f22de36e502bc07964b7905e0 X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freakingpenguin.com; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=JV4lDBY/IhH/3sGyJwqKk+kNs60iB3KYr9ijH2hnDw8=; b=sM7+utZ/vw8oilNXjlXj+Rs7Nc DSI4cZB2Gwkc6dQizQPgvuttMfAHmqXR18NPnGoyJwq2AaUuMF7qwAVnM1I7iqyG7GjOCGCpnWuGv m2e6zWgfsCIAzpqZs4eTD4t5cGpYV4glkS564JB+r7RK9WXvFRzUNAmVwqznvt5QR02oHsJ/MT1Ko KmpXw6Zp+KO82w8YJTN86w/6iMHAhVUARNAWjT3mU2s7pe3s4OahUw+fjhn/b/0wyJoD6dUosnvV1 BYeZyHkVkTcqcIAWT9fc+lPPnfx+LwL0+BFN2FukMXeJGIiRQXN1xC+2xaCavRM27ovQPwChKyLks L82OQcJQ==; Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:00:36 -0400 From: Richard Sent To: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , Leo Famulari Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_Does_anyone_use_i686-linux?= =?US-ASCII?Q?=3F_=5Bwas_Re=3A_bug=2367535=3A_ci=2Eguix=2Eg?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nu=2Eorg_=27Cannot_allocate_memory=27?= =?US-ASCII?Q?_while_building_for_i686-linux=5D?= User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Authenticated-Id: richard@freakingpenguin.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >> 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 i= s >> we're well covered on that front=2E) > >Support does not just mean dedicating build cycles to doomed builds, but >also dedicating people's time to wade through hundreds of failures for >little gain=2E Perhaps our time is better spent supporting architectures >that still have a future=2E > For consideration, I know at least one 3rd-party channel relies on being a= ble to create a multiarch container containing i686 packages=2E I'll refrai= n from linking since it packages nonfree software=2E This is an example whe= re keeping an old architecture around is more complicated than simply count= ing the number of active machines using said architecture=2E Perhaps we could tally the number of substitutes served for supported arch= itectures and use that as our metric for liveliness=2E From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 22:11:34 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 02:11:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46430 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYcKr-0004sl-Kn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:11:33 -0400 Received: from fout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.145]:58479) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYcKp-0004sM-RS for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:11:32 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AA91380C6D; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:01:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=mesmtp; t=1722297675; x= 1722384075; bh=01tfP9iiTyG55xgeNwbYEg5pTV1hTYAG3YG7PFR3xIo=; b=C 46hY9/m9Vm8gbiWEbwt/ClZ5PoeCSQLqAKRetqB5WzYwwUa2vjitb5jqCl0b0Ztp yoSxRwsXwc2bz3MrxtJ5W0TcREkPuAuy/Bg4D2ot1++VgwgJylyQ0YEGuWew5KOH tnAbc12Z4dwnwULeM3ixcfU36+7KDWTNPyDeCtvE20= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1722297675; x=1722384075; bh=01tfP9iiTyG55xgeNwbYEg5pTV1h TYAG3YG7PFR3xIo=; b=Cr1UI+6zlYIotEjCUH9Kv9Un/z9UN/WvRcLUr4NSKNTn dGWGdnTxx8XYpbzn+sL88LB7gt5tmZvyac/Gzf3YmhhHJWbsj5nUV9iTMvpsgawm dTqdUPZOY+pob1UME5DZzPMnz5CTvOJ3+/EKz7EivtgA9kfMLGma4UkayNINKufO L+hN9hRiA5oSu9Tfu5bQJsJS8dP86v04dzDiBCn4hHcx3/w16mWx906f2+q2VrqN HmNRjZsXUyzGXr8M7RCF1JVErpbtzrxhP5snhibZ5UA0covjh1Tx6mNyWrHyxyBk HQmKAJZGKZ4YzgVDuwHa8gMFZKlL3v2nT9U+UbO3zA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrjeefgdeftdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdortddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefvefgheevgeehledtjeffieeghfehheehveevhfeggfeiiedvleevhfekffel jeenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvpdhnsggp rhgtphhtthhopedt X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:01:12 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: Richard Sent Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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 keeping an old architecture around is more complicated than simply counting the number of active machines using said architecture. 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 maybe we consider their needs if it's easy, but I think they shouldn't be considered to present compelling arguments for us to make decisions within GNU Guix, especially if it involves us doing extra work. > Perhaps we could tally the number of substitutes served for supported architectures and use that as our metric for liveliness. I'd love this! Not just for deciding when to remove support, but to measure if adding support gains more users. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 22:20:12 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 02:20:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46448 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYcTD-00058B-Sd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:20:12 -0400 Received: from relay2-u.mailbaby.net ([205.209.127.8]:24140) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYcTB-00057r-I4 for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:20:10 -0400 Received: from zmta1 ([45.76.59.163] 45.76.59.163.vultrusercontent.com) (Authenticated sender: mb25440) by relay2-u.mailbaby.net (MailBabyMTA) with ESMTPSA id 1910141c8f3000bb7e.001 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Tue, 30 Jul 2024 01:29:34 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 8aa0d8dbe9a9c5a32dd4b663d1da52fe8eb246c1f77b ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd5.mailbaby.net; auth=pass smtp.auth=mb25440 smtp.mailfrom=richard@freakingpenguin.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=detka; d=mailbaby.net; t=1722302974; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=BPUQzMd9Ch70vxdMwSZBiOMomh3UoPuLufZgE3hs5rNIgP3INtQzqexLyVWA5avJayKXjW e5XH2Z7hYuAQR9bSPV+uKPKfQbiNo7LrHTmOb5HJRAw0Z/imNkLPIiQv9mc+FhRQgOPwTt y7urZEAapbF3QY3bf61W369WwarjrMCOFOYNFH9wXFN89sdFxn0yQV73Bx798RpAbysfhG FfRfoiaW5FFnIqyangRjVUxA9FejRY1xKnXghOYUwiMAL/Du1tVDzdhoFJbcQMK5c7AI4R LSJ5n4xsnMYrx/bLB2mN5PC845kA+WL6K0VONl8u6LGHXCGYgVa+w+N47bxosw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbaby.net; s=detka; t=1722302974; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=4LhKEe5Kec4PgGj7OkeqXuvNaor10SwwiSa1JJgAzVY=; b=fKHKAz0EE9zIp1A+yhZ1oIW1yJy9lgt/A3mjKtiOu8M45G+nEg3EMj4C/N6L6S56OhKSnj fDFJpoOxvcR735ncn/ySy85p4p9SJYqiz+YdC89tua3JGCcwqiv/QvkCRoX2cV/I+HDWRb HeBff1l9xFK/IenBomWWzgzro0q6Fhsbw4ETZz5CDosQ8VLehSGGghylQYNar2GRmkkgA4 ytDZ1IZR4F0LE0WS0uRVLm7LvwSp0skhdVkCXmh55pxqSs5mmAtNiA9eY1mACa45hfgiO2 KRK8RZ3jgE2El9veAhCPTCwUCABYNNnEkCb39HQ9bluiLtiqLNuV/rs6J61x7A== X-MB-ID: mb25440 Received: from filter006.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.3] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by zmta1 (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 191013af35500017a3.001 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Tue, 30 Jul 2024 01:22:06 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 0d267bb945fb9ceffc900a21de2c31b5b2fa456e315b X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.3] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freakingpenguin.com; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=4LhKEe5Kec4PgGj7OkeqXuvNaor10SwwiSa1JJgAzVY=; b=HHqEUSthHDLmm8t8FBlkyCxfRD bzEb15QOGGp6OIT24tl68POPkQbTwwmWSc0ChycyasYAyc7ZhE6vEyuQiDdC3ng1unpb4yDe3fMaZ f6iGWpF+WvVPaiZGPtfDIPZnX05JTCUKp6vf3DrhUEPkc3mmsq2X5+uVc0z8xqjkW05o08JBCFdF0 pJmbmWQ74s9SP4DD8/d9oIykJlkHDDApKlze68Xj9QW/x2QW7UBVZI+92ft0ugS5P5WpSeGZxU51c Q8pzU76aA/AjFJElt9fA+o8kxWAXEh8lM6rVgML/YhSk1V970UuXEe3eA7TrGd6gU3oOvVgMVi4wF 157iXltQ==; From: Richard Sent To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Leo Famulari's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:01:12 -0400") References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 21:21:57 -0400 Message-ID: <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Authenticated-Id: richard@freakingpenguin.com X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) 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 > maybe we consider their needs if it's easy, but I think they shouldn't > be considered to present compelling arguments for us to make decisions > within GNU Guix, especially if it involves us doing extra work. That's true enough! I don't mean to say that 3rd party channels using i686 is sufficient reason alone to support it. I just consider it worth keeping in mind. In my opinion, when we ask questions like "Does anyone use X", it doesn't really matter if that answer is "Yes, in my custom config" vs. "Yes, in this 3rd party channel my custom config uses". The primary distinction between the two is if the code is shared publicly. I don't see that line in the sand being helpful when asking about usage. To phrase this another way, if I instead said "I use multiarch environments containing i686-linux Guix packages to run software that can't be ported to x64" without mentioning 3rd-party channels at all, would that suddenly become valid usage? Why? i686 multiarch environments are useful in certain cases. Regardless of whether those environments are provided in Guix proper, in a custom config, or a 3rd party channel, user-facing functionality will be lost if we remove them. Breaking changes are okay, and if we consider this too niche of a use case or too high of a maintenance burden it should be dropped. I do believe it should progress into the consideration stage instead of being discarded outright. Thanks! :) -- Take it easy, Richard Sent Making my computer weirder one commit at a time. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 30 10:40:02 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 14:40:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48098 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYo1C-00075I-1r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:40:02 -0400 Received: from fout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.145]:50041) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYo19-00074l-HV for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:40:01 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F141380179; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:39:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=mesmtp; t=1722350379; x= 1722436779; bh=K7nJDtFQUyrb7lFY6KI6h7/F5e719oHZGR6a5X5Kwew=; b=F OzfDRQIGXQEV9Ucvkh6sCit6aD0fpjhSV2FvevVuy0tKnZEM2jb5YhQNeWyaMhCo oUT7h9oR+qsT2M8b3w/5NhkDFqOXAuljKYlIj2QFjYq8lC8ImFrklMynYQeRO8CE QQKViAAHsb0RPcc/dHFggl+9oZttuqIeNJIXPKDWTQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1722350379; x=1722436779; bh=K7nJDtFQUyrb7lFY6KI6h7/F5e71 9oHZGR6a5X5Kwew=; b=PzkYx6ADtq514bSGF8rGVSf50ZG9f1fRbrn1y5DEVNhR b3XbNUsT7BrrkhXbi2NRo6IED6UzoUenysAIbVBzEQoWIys1M3yPwSPrY8f0K3Ft U9voHMNZHrr6jI693ep0gTLAU+IVlz8ngBuyoM5EdiAQN6vzPYj3IFA+aTwSkKIP ALYMweJno7NQACiDQBHZl+aKTnFVDPR1/MRdbbx6heLjX3wOR1kCLrQKY/+ssbC0 WDCoB80Bjc0JlsehhZ3g/JyYFa/2rxHwpf2oGXhj5MFiN0U1x7qkNYCO0QUPOuw+ 2AEKlySg5OXufFoEG73VS77XMam8v0ABK3Etilx9jw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrjeeggdektdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeetheeuvdeivdelueeukefhtdeihedtgefhvddvlefhudejudeiheelfeevteeu hfenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvpdhnsggp rhgtphhtthhopedt X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:39:36 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: Richard Sent Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) I basically agree with you :) On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:21:57PM -0400, Richard Sent wrote: > Breaking changes are okay, and if we consider this too niche of a use > case or too high of a maintenance burden it should be dropped. I do > believe it should progress into the consideration stage instead of being > discarded outright. It's not really a maintenance burden, at least for me as a person that helps with the kernel packages. They get updated automatically as part of our work updating the kernels for more popular systems. But after years of watching the i686 kernel packages fail to build, I'm wondering if the project should be attempting these builds. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 30 11:20:14 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 15:20:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48135 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYoe6-00085p-8Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:20:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f175.google.com ([209.85.222.175]:42044) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYoe4-00085b-As for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:20:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f175.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7a1d3959ad5so399927585a.0 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1722352732; x=1722957532; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jc4vbar+ty3tL+gSLj+zdFFk25j/Qvdnm6bKSQs1xFs=; b=OBUSqNbp/oQKMBfi8YRkAJT2M0HlY1cpowT9luNHkxlNTa8XlITZmCiQsIjQO1eKfi sHDfElDYtmwRvVnOjqkt/rLfLGHB2sMzhLlXPcabUKCMolmYZIv8DIhDAqImbkyPKGBf m0Vae9w8b9LPK54rY0xPJdbhPai/BLSZ/XrXqxPbH7vi1TZJPZerTFMOVXsQDhc2q+Ry NqtZprbNIIprTveU6OHSxtvpO2B2+sWwbyutPgDzjdGR03yuN2H7yP2ea6uSQ59sCNXa RDkAnU8rsIRjsbXvL3LJ80igD26gSAMs2Ha50KcidwwlTWbjN5/TB1x3lOj2cjFvdZ7K DCtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722352732; x=1722957532; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jc4vbar+ty3tL+gSLj+zdFFk25j/Qvdnm6bKSQs1xFs=; b=mrQBMf003WYJDlW9LxxhYwY6+YM3O3QxCJove0icaZH9f9AXY4WAvriUlFUTp5yAzc JjYE3bfXnA5jXxqP3AqvpWDqA9dvXkIa//MBCIwmVys7zfEmblQ85/+rSTOrNfyJgSUB cKP6SsZy3LzfMoOnkN8VkCnCiuePhakEmvr+9iP7Y9408RLk+7KWSiTC5IcZmqZeHaEo AU0pm7B6Xiy1LqKes1kDsMye7yG91hRBBSfgOOCAAew1Le27fSHe+COHo+DTKSOlo4us f6o+w/7crCLRiFWaBuxYC7VAo9ys0ESglO6fL0HGNzA6yYGlTyiGkm47+Bfb+F0g/n0i k97w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXe4F8rVJwooiWSmIDB9wYJg5A84JPF1PoyJc13dOuuI2RSsXdgYEw1W2OZBIL2sqE/DLpe2P8i7mJ4f6SVW587+QtKFjs= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy1mET8Rg+1MloSSQCLZuDUrSTLvWmqqc82SOw3ajFV1MxMricW IJMK0TTUjr0jJgiXKAAP7PTVSNrO0HYSN0GvCi7uPboAggmB4wJa X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEau+gC0AWn0ZtGSkFiE6rQ5ANN9+Nbw1qkqgUtfrMWNp6SN97en7S5pUwK8H6KrrAdUSldnQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:25ca:b0:79e:f9f4:3e99 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7a200c957demr364718585a.1.1722352732105; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ool-ad039216.dyn.optonline.net. [173.3.146.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-7a1d745f404sm642537885a.131.2024.07.30.08.18.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:18:50 +0300 From: Efraim Flashner To: Richard Sent Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Richard Sent , Leo Famulari , guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7W3n6y91InRnqu9a" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> x-ms-reactions: disallow X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x41AAE7DCCA3D8351 X-PGP-Key: https://flashner.co.il/~efraim/efraim_flashner.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --7W3n6y91InRnqu9a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:21:57PM -0400, Richard Sent wrote: > Leo Famulari writes: >=20 > > People have presented some good reasons for keeping at least some level > > of i686 support. > >=20 > > 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 > > maybe we consider their needs if it's easy, but I think they shouldn't > > be considered to present compelling arguments for us to make decisions > > within GNU Guix, especially if it involves us doing extra work. >=20 > That's true enough! I don't mean to say that 3rd party channels using > i686 is sufficient reason alone to support it. I just consider it worth > keeping in mind. >=20 > In my opinion, when we ask questions like "Does anyone use X", it > doesn't really matter if that answer is "Yes, in my custom config" vs. > "Yes, in this 3rd party channel my custom config uses". The primary > distinction between the two is if the code is shared publicly. I don't > see that line in the sand being helpful when asking about usage. >=20 > To phrase this another way, if I instead said "I use multiarch > environments containing i686-linux Guix packages to run software that > can't be ported to x64" without mentioning 3rd-party channels at all, > would that suddenly become valid usage? Why? >=20 > i686 multiarch environments are useful in certain cases. Regardless of > whether those environments are provided in Guix proper, in a custom > config, or a 3rd party channel, user-facing functionality will be lost > if we remove them. >=20 > Breaking changes are okay, and if we consider this too niche of a use > case or too high of a maintenance burden it should be dropped. I do > believe it should progress into the consideration stage instead of being > discarded outright. >=20 > Thanks! :) I would argue that some of the bootstrapping effort which is i686 specifically and can't be easily ported to x86_64 (such as compilers) are a perfectly fine reason to need something to be built natively vs cross-compiled. Another email mentioned wine, which, while I don't believe it is currently possible to cross-compile in guix, may or may not work correctly when used cross-compiled as an input for wine64. Without directly answering the question of "is the phrasing wrong" vs "is the burden too high", IMO there's not really a difference between a package in a separate channel vs a custom package in someone's config, other than how easy it is to share. If we said, despite the move to Qt6 and upstream chromium dropping support for 32-bit architectures and thus affecting i686 support in qtwebengine, that it was imperative that i686 keep a working qtwebengine and that we couldn't upgrade it unless we knew it worked on i686 that might be a problem due to "The Dangers of the Internets", but ongoing work to update patches to keep it working would be good. Or I suppose another example is if we froze Gnome at a version that supported the old librsvg because the new one depends on rust, instead we've worked around it so that those that can't use the new one use the old one, and those packages which can't use the old one specifically use the new one, with the side effect that gnome isn't supported on all architectures. I would not be against selecting some scientific packages and marking them as 64bit only with a note that although they might build on 32bit architectures, they would never be used there and there is no reason to try to even build them. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=A8=D7=A0=D7=A9=D7=9C=D7=A4 = =D7=9D=D7=99=D7=A8=D7=A4=D7=90 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --7W3n6y91InRnqu9a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAmapBE0ACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1F/uA/9HPYjvpj+lSoWxKe91Uwc15OW0nmB/nDgkCbyaz7nhwqFUQSngP2aTqA4 CNI/EEnMtjLR7KoEGEFRbRa8bRF/rxa4rW68HTZApxJ4DL7SFvL+YBQJweKNBz0h HU8NnmLEGqG2jNSpoxNOUpBXRL/bcFhgRe/kJsFmChfLaj7Blf8twwNo2IA1QlZN kIswFOkrf7UBHYI23BZo6I89eo8Rd4A2DeVM7TCME50KV0XTks6dz7wygJ6sJT86 F+bzpAIZ+Wu0t7LLl5j2zqMxUzqsFSR6hqr6ybjW0LjLl0mDWMjtMjvquMqZQDrv 1I7JfBMO6JPsW91J3MktW8kur/+dW7CW+xBhe+PU0kqSMW5YfyfbcvfEOCynT05x ad1UbSBTYJu7EgTb2izGTMgAqA0YXpezMtgjOIXmyHJ87T91sVQvIusX7md2Hcht Zo4ARgyIrNMQsNg3Saxk9d3Wq41FwxQlNb1NjKR+x+kbccg50gCsWgqBe0BVXirv ALhmbxSkzO5gHkRRmv2KA5Ztt8z/te6kn0PUIlAWTRX+XP11imWBv/E5sD9hGvjZ yafQKPEr3r+c1WoWdpaAxoPpE1Th6szZ5U11DN1MxkNn+e4OZNd9lY2O5ZZVXsvd RK1Micqd3mBEfyu2bSix3Yw/MCwUQqhG+v27ahDGIwGqDxyYvKs= =CfPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7W3n6y91InRnqu9a-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 30 17:02:55 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2024 21:02:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48626 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzj-0008VK-GX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:55 -0400 Received: from mx0.riseup.net ([198.252.153.6]:39848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sYtzf-0008V3-3V for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:02:54 -0400 Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WYSNQ4nJYz9wgd; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:02:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1722373350; bh=wsURrd86lh/DYdaXyyS6SVUW+gWLJzYC9nNb1iU1qiI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dsFPQrGlyFVb91WIevcR94JKr5rfKoTuOtMFFuxzH6gXtHwU/D0AjI25BE6YRYHsA lHatNVkX9ggvOO1PTik7gBAq+snP2Xptv6WDogf/Bmr6euMuZAME7o3YCYI0PfTHkY k+E9neKiLTRN+I9EuMFM8//x4yToszKq3tDl1xe8= X-Riseup-User-ID: 05A022684E5DEDACABAC5FD520C28E3EA6E025807C8AF7FD2E22BD451168270B Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WYSNP28zjzFvrH; Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:02:23 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Batista To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi! seg 29 jul 2024 às 14:33:59 (1722274439), rekado@elephly.net enviou: > 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 > > can avoid that problem. > > > >> I'm forwarding this bug to guix-devel to get more attention. > >> > >> Is anybody actually using i686-linux anymore? Or should we begin to > >> officially remove support for it? > > > > Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware > > supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia > > suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I > > believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, > > that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 > > years old at least. > > FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation > of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only > user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting > the architecture for my sake. For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. Most software that I use on that machine still builds and runs fine, with the occasional hiccup. But even though I use the arch, I also don't feel particularly inclined to fix the occasional errors and can understand if people here decide to drop support to it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Aug 01 16:12:53 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Aug 2024 20:12:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51989 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZcAO-00071I-Py for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:12:53 -0400 Received: from fout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.146]:47581) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZcAM-000710-H7 for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:12:51 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFD8138AB72; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:12:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s= mesmtp; t=1722543147; x=1722629547; bh=aTbxglKZ2Umsvy/CFTvsHcP9Y zMzwFOTy0tIZWuFWI8=; b=xBdzwJjX5bK6Rndo9ScqICSaRCAy804TqgqPwtk74 AZkU4ZAa1B2s6LNfUVKYTsOxWr11RHMNqYtDSJFiAHePA8RSbObs73EcIs2HIsG8 /P4FlcdfQZ8Tq1Qny2599KRM6EaYHk26Kt+c2rHKNnmP94NWFWHfOdG/lEC8dUlY b4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1722543147; x= 1722629547; bh=aTbxglKZ2Umsvy/CFTvsHcP9YzMzwFOTy0tIZWuFWI8=; b=p juBJnwPrfWIn94IXNbKqnz6WqoXiiWwJTzZCrudFDh7UNYDsp95x5VdEF0ds1NVS 6afoLp3Bxh2Z8ci27P8nvxUxKQzZNKkyhVNBECbVAoNpREjcoKCeDDlayq/5c79d lYNzLRYVolrql0Tk/Quf1jR652zj+OXnAxclBLvqtyd6yxEeKDSwGfZml2Flufhc Zo+868VfJ8bPpLMvq5gSf7g8RxPyri49JmnqRCCWd1xgUH7OI/D0kePVc/l5aOxn 62Z7FqQ+8yxPM9FrUxHXbHS2PZ9EJT+f65wSrMof//2Ut5CNs4tNEYefJbQs/edx gb0xyRl4Ayoim40iYmqnQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrjeekgddugeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttddunecuhfhrohhmpefnvgho ucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeekgfeivdelffehhedtgfeufffhfeejhfduleetffetfeettedutefghfek hfegvdenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvpdhn sggprhgtphhtthhopedt X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:12:18 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Batista Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 06:02:23PM -0300, André Batista wrote: > seg 29 jul 2024 às 14:33:59 (1722274439), rekado@elephly.net enviou: > > FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation > > of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only > > user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting > > the architecture for my sake. > > For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. Most > software that I use on that machine still builds and runs fine, with the > occasional hiccup. > > But even though I use the arch, I also don't feel particularly inclined > to fix the occasional errors and can understand if people here decide to > drop support to it. Thanks for chiming in Ricardo and André. Do you build your own kernels for these machines? Or wait for the occasional successful build from CI? Download substitutes from a different build farm? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 02 04:37:46 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Aug 2024 08:37:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52446 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZnnG-0000vN-2X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2024 04:37:46 -0400 Received: from sender3-of-o57.zoho.com ([136.143.184.57]:21714) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZnnA-0000vA-R7 for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2024 04:37:45 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1722587825; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=mVnyUYzF7LrNaYR5GcKSLuHCgu9bcW8mtOHQtMMnME5/nwoMnETjo/wlJDvI7tWmFi0bFtqAbPNtAR1u21B0ajdmJl3gERodLZOpwyNI/amFLiIpuOS/bPTsy4M95xGknq3UXYw4zgFEbmUx6ElyUyZ8dJj3ZTHRwb7ZCUvU6oY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1722587825; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=+9BU+qtB8Vc6+TL/Zfh6E15O9nOlRElSvSHPN2tJBYc=; b=lR2aDtXEgvZusxmfaszkMyELUr34hnamSq9EgCVyaykP/IBzdEFxsYyvI8Ss5T2CTcwJHMzCnAP5hnilBlrrOLsmcL9b7pqPuLJlDHzESUUubMJruFwsUphGe3SkAyC6M70TVta60CeA0vUEVto9xqPJ+1JbSNinAQmcw/Ezdpk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1722587825; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=+9BU+qtB8Vc6+TL/Zfh6E15O9nOlRElSvSHPN2tJBYc=; b=EPhhDhWdnr1T62US615AkNf8hwLK8VFq/U34TdYeFpZMdTPYcavOoTIBipVinEOv bbl/4GSmQpE6b6zkx2k8qNvUzaFi+HoU91vQBxeuQ/TMOx/MbUgka2bTJF5nn4R1spO pCD4+OcgMg9A0u0ahbsx5mIp6eD25GHx+wmNDLaM= Received: by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1722587822571748.501628657171; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 01:37:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Ricardo Wurmus To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Leo Famulari's message of "Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:12:18 -0400") References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 10:36:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87mslv1fth.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9?= Batista , guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Leo Famulari writes: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 06:02:23PM -0300, Andr=C3=A9 Batista wrote: >> seg 29 jul 2024 =C3=A0s 14:33:59 (1722274439), rekado@elephly.net enviou: >> > FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installati= on >> > of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the on= ly >> > user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporti= ng >> > the architecture for my sake. >>=20 >> For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. Most >> software that I use on that machine still builds and runs fine, with the >> occasional hiccup. >>=20 >> But even though I use the arch, I also don't feel particularly inclined >> to fix the occasional errors and can understand if people here decide to >> drop support to it. > > Thanks for chiming in Ricardo and Andr=C3=A9. Do you build your own kerne= ls > for these machines? Or wait for the occasional successful build from CI? > Download substitutes from a different build farm? I used to get the kernel from ci.guix.gnu.org. I haven't updated that system in at least 6 months, though. (It's not networked and used for the occasional game.) I use "guix deploy" for all weak machines at home and build whatever might be missing on the targets on my x86_64 laptop. For aarch64 this means a regular build of a custom kernel. For i686 I use the stock kernel. --=20 Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 02 15:35:10 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Aug 2024 19:35:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53762 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZy3S-00029o-7j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2024 15:35:10 -0400 Received: from mx0.riseup.net ([198.252.153.6]:42404) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sZy3N-000292-Hy for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2024 15:35:08 -0400 Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WbGHj1skJz9wsc; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1722627281; bh=agkjMZ5Iyn7eDJjRcIcqny+d7320T9EMKg9s+Ovc9GM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=S6nJr6t6OoSpMRgza7L26B2Z9vAFGGnwBGXAy/BOMdE21ZDBSx81MmmRE+4NyN/s/ ltwszkw4XCFlf1+C9orvWOWJYzZk2gdNVRgezAyWHa4UKzH2PZVIvHHhuoLMdP4Bpb 3US8UJCVd408DTFDzyP4u5GeKaFfr6NdKD/XU8jM= X-Riseup-User-ID: DCC0B28987143A1020CEA5B0CF92E4A7E34A803459109FD55AB437AC2D4532A1 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WbGHg5qxkzFsTy; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:34:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:34:31 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Batista To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi qui 01 ago 2024 às 16:12:18 (1722539538), leo@famulari.name enviou: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 06:02:23PM -0300, André Batista wrote: > > seg 29 jul 2024 às 14:33:59 (1722274439), rekado@elephly.net enviou: > > > FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation > > > of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only > > > user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting > > > the architecture for my sake. > > > > For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. Most > > software that I use on that machine still builds and runs fine, with the > > occasional hiccup. > > > > But even though I use the arch, I also don't feel particularly inclined > > to fix the occasional errors and can understand if people here decide to > > drop support to it. > > Thanks for chiming in Ricardo and André. Do you build your own kernels > for these machines? Or wait for the occasional successful build from CI? > Download substitutes from a different build farm? I build my own kernels tailored for that machine so I did not notice that substitutes were not available. I usually keep pace with whatever is the latest stable kernel until it goes eol or, if it is a lts, until the latest stable reaches x.x.3 or x.x.4 minor version. Currently it is on v. 6.9.12. I've not had any issues building kernels to it in a long time, but I do use two local offload builders that are x84_64. None of them have more than 8 cores though. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Aug 12 10:04:50 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Aug 2024 14:04:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43604 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sdVfF-0006SZ-Ip for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:04:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39830) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sdVfB-0006SF-Hy for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sdVeY-0004DU-QR; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:04:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=HbmG/Uwqjd/jyZIXQ6kaMH+KyAUWwkRWh/l4H1apzv4=; b=J5AP4yTBSJ8Kf2iE0F4Q COSZOICPF1TDp5BeJXOMTqGYNh8gosAyyjDwHNPQYpcXatuqoT3flwwk/vRK0EIhfteFggNvhMBKP Dn/NfcTXvciINamuuELwIzPoqOI+f0r8cCc37vlGrMDL5C8WsykFNnyuJJEvCgq4izP4ip6EBR0On otuEJSadJ635rAEGm8uFozlkISQGv8EXadiTW3cs5pZnb9KKHDFk951tQnB0qI6rsHHE1yZRaJP7T BXavJztLTNiOGQUJsE9j7UKAPjNwvOlsh/THSuFMifD7SZDnTI0avszg+AlSC+tFW1Npy9EfFEQdY B6ZOHCbocKwXXg==; From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Efraim Flashner's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:49:45 +0300") References: X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Sextidi 26 Thermidor an 232 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9v?= =?utf-8?Q?olution=2C?= jour de la Myrte X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:03:57 +0200 Message-ID: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Efraim Flashner skribis: > 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 > can avoid that problem. Also, this is very much a defect of xz; on =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98patch-and-repack=E2=80=99 uses zstd, which is much less memory-hun= gry and more predictable. Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 05 06:10:20 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36233 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sm9RT-0002gg-Ea for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 06:10:20 -0400 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21161) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sm91w-0000g6-Kn for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 05:43:57 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1725529366; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=A+iLR3R13pPdmJkxsmQbFcfeLULJ8d6DMqvQGyHyAS/i90Ju2EXAQvWSZAOrBqXh48x7hvxcyEikfM4KIPG6pxybZfpUioa3hmfsfz11PlMuUwPWJb1rtubPeasdzrC7Z78KKs3vNK/Tf+DWwEGyrjXd0dBZgx/lyZwkOxc7gzo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1725529366; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=IctdJszUa1JKLFKPkQxN5pCR+/TameiCin27gWp1gFA=; b=nc7EOVAGjTnpcg36cXwIhCpuAv+xb1ejcqe4ftHnipUsPNIpBSYtTyyQS8vak02n97E2CNdDGC5rA4roXj6vURi5lcIAFz2OpbfCmIdixklkXV+QefZqHA4v0Q2wq8/K4tHsszf9QvuGVHDXrAw3ORhu4QORQg7EgM+2cuSiHTE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1725529366; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=IctdJszUa1JKLFKPkQxN5pCR+/TameiCin27gWp1gFA=; b=FVK1/ieri1/BUFOWt8THf1bVCACAh7l+NJc8KkGXWHooX7M1KHllp75gW1OdtlYF U5SwJMrxW1kyAn7iKlaxCMrOLsLF9aiSAcuyaBiN0hbfXkBjgchIMV597bn47llbz8S K5Om21sGt1bT4d/HBOboV3kXIke97/f4/gaY31RA= Received: by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1725529364850119.18176474390896; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 02:42:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Ricardo Wurmus To: =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9?= Batista Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Andr=C3=A9?= Batista"'s message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:02:23 -0300") References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:42:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87le06mo6m.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Andr=C3=A9 Batista writes: >> > Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware >> > supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia >> > suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I >> > believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, >> > that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 >> > years old at least. >>=20 >> FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation >> of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only >> user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting >> the architecture for my sake. > > For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. I just noticed that my Atom-powered netbook should also be able to run an x86_64 system. I'll try to upgrade today; if this is successful I won't have any i686 system left at home. --=20 Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 05 19:54:05 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Sep 2024 23:54:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38541 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1smMIf-0004iJ-3y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 19:54:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:39930) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1smMIc-0004hb-1v for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 19:54:03 -0400 Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4X0GPt5H7ZzDqK1; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 23:52:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1725580370; bh=w/T0FE8drq3CGmWp+fnPqEdOl6d6GF9qwCRCH97Aaus=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YdylJHikqTfsFoBW3wVyUQllito9Pk5OTC/EASUP3eP7cXeLtu0jW69bKKlUgM8VM fe/LjeWwIxz4WrK5Z/3oPbQVVvSDM8+aG4qUP6n7TChT8EFyixEfDu2w8TtclSlb7l Zsqa6q8OhTtVQWOfCETZFaENNcNKSfm4jXJTWMMI= X-Riseup-User-ID: 284DB04CD35391A874C49017B0CC58580C4D10F4C62472D524F64F450ECCC5A1 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4X0GPf1ky2zFsZr; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 23:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:52:34 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Batista To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> <87le06mo6m.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87le06mo6m.fsf@elephly.net> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) qui 05 set 2024 às 11:42:41 (1725547361), rekado@elephly.net enviou: > André Batista writes: > > >> > Keeping this to i686-linux specifically, what generation of hardware > >> > supports i686 but not x86_64? Some (very) quick checking on wikipedia > >> > suggests that the x60 from 2006 was either 32-bit or 64-bit, and I > >> > believe there was an atom chip from 2015 that was 32-bit. Specifically, > >> > that makes the newest hardware (at least from the CPU perspective) 10 > >> > years old at least. > >> > >> FWIW, I'm using one of those Atom chips in a netbook for an installation > >> of Sugar Desktop. I upgrade it every few months or so. If I'm the only > >> user of i686-linux I would not want to condemn the project to supporting > >> the architecture for my sake. > > > > For the record, I'm another one still using those atom netbooks. > > I just noticed that my Atom-powered netbook should also be able to run > an x86_64 system. I'll try to upgrade today; if this is successful I > won't have any i686 system left at home. Lucky you! Mine is an Intel Atom N270 which is 32-bit only... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 10 06:57:44 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2024 11:57:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56021 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tA6Zc-0006GS-8i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:57:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:56651) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tA6ZY-0006GH-AZ for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:57:42 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20cb47387ceso38003615ad.1 for <67535@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:57:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1731239799; x=1731844599; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=KGfVgWPpSYbNtuHsx11YcbgZz81nFfvn6mNZoOb0mw4=; b=h4FArWRnP08ki5yDjHPdDq+TVxJNs5hKtt31+c6e0vkgKj/+WBVD9OdOEHSAUUW880 HiWH6UkvRIilOqZesaDYy/w79IPSFn6/4hgBd4sWNhR6PBLq6BZ19niyZfoaoXh8UFsk qDtGyDD5RZMc7HARTtLJrqSfFduekLlPtRbSZRsYgP+p4yyz79pbjNhlg5jKu8eA5+tB JTS3udLHvMq7cfGmpxAZNwU8N2GXsiXYKSAz7RfbsK0fwyeTmmHMq5Cmn5GsysjC6SeZ S9QB/iJHtwBAO4UZMNzQtJQem2frz0yVhB/+cFd4dy7wz8I0sCCHzA+xGD7+71P8xrnm hQfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731239799; x=1731844599; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KGfVgWPpSYbNtuHsx11YcbgZz81nFfvn6mNZoOb0mw4=; b=K4YkqE6JtvFLlqW1OrlKxQRKDM5GxmsAaOhV1WYEdTzYLMN8KpXEBHaG+7fbUMRMy2 vRys5lc7jBOH3Xm50PohkFLRtX69gwEgFuE+Sm13wPmkgiab4dYVgQXowrw5HfbRyrNO bjoHPhBGFkxFGfqUV/e0Zhfvuok4FDGzZe+UVcrdAx9bty6S7Dav1Y9+pPYeHm2u4OJT 1RKIIgGoHOXyKmu9R9WnxnXKauc3k125c5avfQ56fmzibvsFprrhpsJBdheHFAtfok5W dNkEnFULIUs1D5+dIh6lM4KBmq5ajG379TEuEwzHPdyysmNzDN41ZwT9mFgaPsYmuWXm nIeg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXXwkfAWwLnq5AgGiWck8nyoDhahcxMZ3SIgMv+5j/R0WAcZM0HL5W+bBZmBnFYXmEx5lLLjw==@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YybpJsoeVbK9Zpgc1vQ/l85aNXikcmzoQrbr6OBmgKzmyjwjD3L qnhZ8D7QkzetScXtaRcxM07fNwhvUfE1pi+vjm2JSvf5FO4Quni8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEc2O7JyEpanETIaSMhhJp2wDSgIR/vQ5nq8gUhoABPOK0Ac3ohXNa4cm4DK081X32l0n6vFg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f541:b0:20c:cf39:fe3c with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2118359be6bmr122352735ad.41.1731239799319; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from terra ([2405:6586:be0:0:c8ff:1707:9b9:af89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e9a5f83fbdsm6678015a91.22.2024.11.10.03.56.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:56:38 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Cournoyer To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:03:57 +0200") References: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:56:33 +0900 Message-ID: <87h68fwbda.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Efraim Flashner skribis: > >> 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 >> can avoid that problem. > > Also, this is very much a defect of xz; on =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99, > =E2=80=98patch-and-repack=E2=80=99 uses zstd, which is much less memory-h= ungry and more > predictable. I was about to write this; thanks for be6g faster :-). I believe the unpacking should now be fine even for i686, Leo? --=20 Thanks, Maxim From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 10 07:32:29 2024 Received: (at 67535) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2024 12:32:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56070 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tA77F-0007ml-9I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:32:29 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42412) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tA77B-0007mV-ML for 67535@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:32:27 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tA772-00061m-GC; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:32:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=vzJrKCGFNMl1gWyOsP+pcu+VBZf+lYCzR/cLGCi35WU=; b=Nst1kR3NI9ETwRtbEDSH 9vpMNxxUqCjU9mCfQqy6gwGs40haXjt9WXT9HmwWufPfrcw996oJWNqVFSevtw9Zs+BzQZ3nHNdYo 2jMIs5heuuggb13Ys7uVBUKqSKo4xDfqUrHS5Eoi/n30mNbNOvJD9LL3DDWzWPT2h+RgL0j5f8FMA PLXARdEd+rHciVc80QsrQYCPHU+TAALDw7xDwHwW75mnNByVDKSHOMi6iUzrdEaqHnP5r6DdvO+yL 74ECCkElRtKBLY39m1+3sbTolGRp/tHBVk9mG2hlVpdOWowLhuqHJZkzsrKnLCe4moI3uPAv0wgcP kpX2GzqSsTItMQ==; From: To: Richard Sent Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Efraim Flashner's message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:18:50 +0300") Organization: AvatarAcademy.nl References: <87sevsxtqg.fsf@elephly.net> <87v80n8yiy.fsf@freakingpenguin.com> X-Url: http://AvatarAcademy.nl Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 13:32:12 +0100 Message-ID: <87zfm7z2ur.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus , 67535@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Efraim Flashner writes: Hello, > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:21:57PM -0400, Richard Sent wrote: >> Leo Famulari writes: >>=20 >> > People have presented some good reasons for keeping at least some level >> > of i686 support. >> >=20 >> > 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 >> > maybe we consider their needs if it's easy, but I think they shouldn't >> > be considered to present compelling arguments for us to make decisions >> > within GNU Guix, especially if it involves us doing extra work. >>=20 >> That's true enough! I don't mean to say that 3rd party channels using >> i686 is sufficient reason alone to support it. I just consider it worth >> keeping in mind. >>=20 >> In my opinion, when we ask questions like "Does anyone use X", it >> doesn't really matter if that answer is "Yes, in my custom config" vs. >> "Yes, in this 3rd party channel my custom config uses". The primary >> distinction between the two is if the code is shared publicly. I don't >> see that line in the sand being helpful when asking about usage. >>=20 >> To phrase this another way, if I instead said "I use multiarch >> environments containing i686-linux Guix packages to run software that >> can't be ported to x64" without mentioning 3rd-party channels at all, >> would that suddenly become valid usage? Why? >>=20 >> i686 multiarch environments are useful in certain cases. Regardless of >> whether those environments are provided in Guix proper, in a custom >> config, or a 3rd party channel, user-facing functionality will be lost >> if we remove them. >>=20 >> Breaking changes are okay, and if we consider this too niche of a use >> case or too high of a maintenance burden it should be dropped. I do >> believe it should progress into the consideration stage instead of being >> discarded outright. >>=20 >> Thanks! :) > > I would argue that some of the bootstrapping effort which is i686 > specifically and can't be easily ported to x86_64 (such as compilers) > are a perfectly fine reason to need something to be built natively vs > cross-compiled. Another email mentioned wine, which, while I don't > believe it is currently possible to cross-compile in guix, may or may > not work correctly when used cross-compiled as an input for wine64. Also, I have been "using" Guix i686-linux to for my work on bringing i586-gnu Guix/Hurd to real 32bit hardware, by installing and re-installing Guix/hurd from Guix/linux and dual booting. i586-gnu does not boot on any of my older 64bit machines. A draft blog post is in the works about this. While this could technically also be done by installing debian-i386 and do foreign-distro guix development, that would be far from ideal. > Without directly answering the question of "is the phrasing wrong" vs > "is the burden too high", IMO there's not really a difference between a > package in a separate channel vs a custom package in someone's config, > other than how easy it is to share. If we said, despite the move to Qt6 > and upstream chromium dropping support for 32-bit architectures and thus > affecting i686 support in qtwebengine, that it was imperative that i686 > keep a working qtwebengine and that we couldn't upgrade it unless we > knew it worked on i686 that might be a problem due to "The Dangers of > the Internets", but ongoing work to update patches to keep it working > would be good. Or I suppose another example is if we froze Gnome at a > version that supported the old librsvg because the new one depends on > rust, instead we've worked around it so that those that can't use the > new one use the old one, and those packages which can't use the old one > specifically use the new one, with the side effect that gnome isn't > supported on all architectures. > > I would not be against selecting some scientific packages and marking > them as 64bit only with a note that although they might build on 32bit > architectures, they would never be used there and there is no reason to > try to even build them. Indeed, it would be nice to at least have a basic exwm system available. Greeings, Janneke --=20 Janneke Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE https://AvatarAcade= my.com From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 10 23:51:32 2024 Received: (at 67535-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Nov 2024 04:51:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57426 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAMOi-00019b-DV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:32 -0500 Received: from fhigh-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.159]:56645) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAMOf-00019O-PT for 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:31 -0500 Received: from phl-compute-08.internal (phl-compute-08.phl.internal [10.202.2.48]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65ADE11400E4; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-08.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=mesmtp; t=1731300684; x= 1731387084; bh=yFfTUy31I7DuTkAuOATLlFANq3Nans3/dwnrrtyfQx4=; b=J juwNY1EjAlX8rydD/RUmecpGSJDpSd/tvv7+17BKWxMU+5Kq971m0kS1OAdYLl2o rXNKUIu4olyzDEIVKiO6KGdfYwKJVJ71hIGj7khOkKLqSP75MSAxr6603a/43YRC DUjArfvNG9o8QdImupbISFbth0FQ9Nf8FbD+N9uyUU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1731300684; x=1731387084; bh=yFfTUy31I7DuTkAuOATLlFANq3Nans3/dwn rrtyfQx4=; b=kFEgEtk4XZx55FWG6aayzhidnhi9gWSQg8Xr+4AOyJ4nwqMddOF 3Qo65zE5F4NEqxtM1Um2YL2fGGo8DzbfsANRr0Yn2bj0knR2jfzTXtpbwECo6kQW QbJZB98/UHSeAyH0TadjxjwAXAJOR4u0bZciS+hDYN5TpElRMAqQrp2xMHNnd6vI MBNlLBVxPBpirYMeCtHfEYd37oVXKklHbGEym3vXWcslbeocucPo+TfnphHZfO3+ ooUGyFH3YLfDgnlSnvrXyTlo3v89u/IYKPtx3ABa9+oXf6EXH24arqSFLfL4zZtR 69XWC/miGYIyjpj6YK2245+VAo9Gao5h9zw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddruddugdejiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffr tefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnth hsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecu hfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmh gvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeetheeuvdeivdelueeukefhtdeihedtgefhvddvlefh udejudeiheelfeevteeuhfenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghr ihdrnhgrmhgvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtph htthhopehmrgigihhmrdgtohhurhhnohihvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthht oheplhhuughosehgnhhurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepieejheefhedqughonhgvseguvg gssghughhsrdhgnhhurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhuihigqdguvghvvghlsehgnhhu rdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i819c4023:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:05 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: References: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> <87h68fwbda.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87h68fwbda.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535-done Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 08:56:33PM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > I was about to write this; thanks for be6g faster :-). I believe the > unpacking should now be fine even for i686, Leo? Yes, it's working now! Fantastic! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 12 08:01:00 2024 Received: (at 67535-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Nov 2024 13:01:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32851 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAqVv-0006IG-O7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:01:00 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:48356) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAqVs-0006I1-AL for 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:00:58 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20e576dbc42so59629845ad.0 for <67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:00:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1731416390; x=1732021190; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T6rNOfy7XoIGluZyI2myytY2d3p5njOtZjL9lEZ97Zk=; b=eUhljWO555wdpd6tE3poGEnWlUDJlSmWHShxFSJl1cyS6WGQLXCkhAem8Z3FvYWFGp QbPea2MU+ozvydBSXmBGz4/G4XJwNgCnmcquzzgDgV89lnLr/cgaYsillsD+roj3UXkL GZWAPEH+UNAKnzqU6TNIpib9JGmadbTDFC6Hhh4d4f6OeJajRLCbOfSxA9XJTMmoh7Cw c7C62xiK9qs1lDyzWkvsqjKFqxRbNYzEQpg8VefnfYw3LF3mlO2HduYF/SQqYqeNRyVF eBky+dR7VMmqzj/ZxkNfd5cSZVq9uelq5BqwPLkh8zoD2/BxHCydCr1LPSaP7859e+vf 1YZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731416390; x=1732021190; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=T6rNOfy7XoIGluZyI2myytY2d3p5njOtZjL9lEZ97Zk=; b=KPdv+6h+DB1TVXLYDvMoovueZFsD4W231TIdDcycnB1mIk/eIpKt3xn50T9ERlovdo Mps3Zx98EX5VC6ghDnYfeZWjPRK96Sl0OxUqoWpip3c7GK02ML+FesrkLAHbTuaEn/VF YwP9Oi0YuU5x5puLNb5TvYay9JVTAG7KN74+V28QXMZY2LFM/Elg3UziXFarFPHn/dUY 7xBShpcs2wxfFQthMP1B1NkqV8UyGf5hx3cmLWpFz2ZowREuom1o1xKD9bSao7azln7P /rHymjp+F8yW0MyqmF53CXwZvw686G7bm8mvrZreAyOBxdM43sc6eqJeBwU+zIlslYLt KDHg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWeT4hcq22gm7NhlPrnAm7UXMXhgJKzFFH4ZE4agNP8uytnc0TTTnMZBbJhaGgNRNyckxsC27bqb65V@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzr5SFrGICGfl7eJa4sf+qKqpArpgjRq3yJjUB37+ixnj2IqwPs 3wQV1Z+DBZlt83u7Gdn2gwfBSDlehYkzbNXVpnc5L+gPag6Q+4+w X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcYXSuBi6TLXzP2MFXBKsENZ4VrVS8hm8tMqiSPEKVXT9E4Jpdck3J96UNMgZk6RVRp/cchA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:234a:b0:20c:80d9:9982 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-211835b7bc7mr230712045ad.47.1731416390369; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 04:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from terra ([2405:6586:be0:0:c8ff:1707:9b9:af89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-21177e6c8ffsm93521485ad.256.2024.11.12.04.59.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 04:59:49 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Cournoyer To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] In-Reply-To: (Leo Famulari's message of "Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:51:05 -0500") References: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> <87h68fwbda.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:59:42 +0900 Message-ID: <87bjyk38w1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535-done Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, Leo Famulari writes: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 08:56:33PM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >> I was about to write this; thanks for be6g faster :-). I believe the >> unpacking should now be fine even for i686, Leo? > > Yes, it's working now! Fantastic! Great. That said, I wouldn't be against stopping building i686 packages on our build farm. Nobody has shown much interested in fixing the broken ones or hunting down test failures... it seems better to focus our energy elsewhere and clear the view in my opinion (such as old bugs on our bug tracker that lingers on) So I'd be of the opinion to: 1) Stop building i686 packages 2) Otherwise preserve the architecture in Guix source so that someone can at least build from source and hack on it if they wish, e.g. to test cross-building packages. -- Thanks, Maxim From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 12 11:17:23 2024 Received: (at 67535-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Nov 2024 16:17:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39014 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAtZv-0008Cl-Nk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:17:23 -0500 Received: from cyberdimension.org ([79.143.250.36]:50702 helo=rockpro64.cyberdimension.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tAtZt-0008Cb-7i for 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:17:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; s=dkim; bh=geuoFfXgPZOw9dL ZqOvM5F1mOMfwPvucfPlorO0h0VI=; h=references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to: from:date; d=cyberdimension.org; b=ZQ1/1ldqTOtC+rJ44ADSs+kmxbLUtUe5TUo apKg9ahiXJiWsHjXZ7Hqi1dfGT+4fSb3Ce8eZO184F/Jmcw/UvjeBWfFvZszwsjZQUlOWv ZHx9e4dO51NDL1/QDjqpvktkFLXW76zhb7ky+QswQXjhd1j4y/yKoVINwm/2M+JUwoEAlL TVidzNlVGc8Lx64fe9QsoGasx1GolCMX282Ml6kIPGtI8F5S6IqxPkIHhkG+0TS5WU6RW9 LLOOx2Xj3qVHwu15AQ0c0xkjOsRHxgyMz2yYYfyCtx/SzuvN43uIuX1oYsvSSZUnZ3wQG9 0PyIoKuzhzZVP72L6iMzCMX/cZQ== Received: from primarylaptop.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rockpro64.cyberdimension.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 465c1e4d; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:17:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:13:23 +0100 From: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: Does anyone use i686-linux? [was Re: bug#67535: ci.guix.gnu.org 'Cannot allocate memory' while building for i686-linux] Message-ID: <20241112171323.619c734b@primarylaptop.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <87bjyk38w1.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87h6bpdeia.fsf@gnu.org> <87h68fwbda.fsf@gmail.com> <87bjyk38w1.fsf@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/l1vYtuFxy.gHvf2T50zkYqK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 67535-done Cc: Jason Self , neox@gnu.org, Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= , 67535-done@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-devel@gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/l1vYtuFxy.gHvf2T50zkYqK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:59:42 +0900 Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Great. That said, I wouldn't be against stopping building i686 > packages on our build farm. Nobody has shown much interested in > fixing the broken ones or hunting down test failures... it seems > better to focus our energy elsewhere and clear the view in my opinion > (such as old bugs on our bug tracker that lingers on) >=20 > So I'd be of the opinion to: >=20 > 1) Stop building i686 packages > 2) Otherwise preserve the architecture in Guix source so that someone > can at least build from source and hack on it if they wish, e.g. to > test cross-building packages. In GNU Boot we chose to use i686-linux as the system we build packages for as this way we support both i686 and x86_64 (some of the computers we support are still i686). Though for now we fixed the revision to Guix 1.4.0 so it means that we don't find regressions affecting newer revisions. I also personally also depend on i686 computers (ThinkPad X60) that I don't use every day but that are important for me: they hold the signature key of my gpg key and they are way easier to secure than x86_64 machines against evil maid attacks (the machines were audited, and don't allow DMA from external ports unlike all the x86_64 machines supported by GNU Boot). But here too they are not updated regularly. So does it means that we ultimately need to run our own builder for i686 or are there other options (like setting up our own CI, going back to i686 to test builds (I was running i686 to be able to find and fix what didn't work before), etc), using latest Guix revisions to test more often, etc? All the use cases above only require very basic software to work: we don't need full blown desktop systems (that would probably require to bootstrap rust and I didn't really manage to find a way that would work in Guix). Denis. --Sig_/l1vYtuFxy.gHvf2T50zkYqK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEeC+d2+Nrp/PU3kkGX138wUF34mMFAmczfqMACgkQX138wUF3 4mNhqQ//bLFmJqE3CyPybtqVOilNeBtyxGVPaCnj2MrGvoCuTtxmudNDYsO5xpgR Z/qT8rz9vu38mYtMdIA0HoZlz3qKHYDHeAyTsV72bYLhUeY1/mhwDOM0CtGd3RyF idJl/OzFxVNM510sDlNa6ZpvVD7dEQ/E1TxzOTmJUVZ15t3qNXxMPe7P6v2DHXU7 DOklagUkYI1wBKRLM1yUs4Oq52H09w4nD1us+hUkRsLQlOvqMiCPpBESmRUgRs/U ZrjOxXVmO6X0vA2eCGplmDOWBamoUz9ebXnh/MEgM7GmEM6/z1crSDk7SE26D62H vUOxJiY+zSK/pGnQMoidWMbMTpBP+lmIRJPat5iWC2GCFs+eY9/7taI8PUGXSdyl EgsBxhYoh/cIfohrYhbMonZ4uWuzrplVh74RlUSZGhAXFQnMl8KElPZ+HVMj3JGv b0AJxg2pYqBL0OQSq+pT0q0qYbagj15IIX580M+/tLTkSHfAuGG2EoVHW3rMzcHX vMnb09ggyuM0ZUjD4v8fEPdb6nDMoykWbEd4EERwO5ldknMiGUnwewGkT0tKfoHS ccVYAYY2S7iN7hHWdNQv1tkcPGrq9xzZnu0Jo5DBYswjv3ttiJixFvybtI0nAxIw 3FzCYgGMbtjamvGyM0SVKljYpbxx+VFz33r39/AcXanyOm1WCAI= =Djd5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/l1vYtuFxy.gHvf2T50zkYqK-- From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:37:48 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:24:09 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator