<lfam>I'm not sure how to tell the package where to look besides editing it's setup.py, which is not optimal but the best I can come up with while debugging so far. Here is the relevant line of setup.py: http://paste.lisp.org/+3AYP
<mark_weaver>early on, GNU recognized the importance of portability, to avoid being tied to a single manufacturer
<mark_weaver>but I'm sorry to say that today, many (most?) free software developers seem to test only on Intel systems, and it requires a lot of effort from a small number of distributions who support non-Intel to get things working again on other systems.
<mark_weaver>well, I guess ARM is also a big focus, so at least that's something.
<daviid>mark_weaver: what other option? is there even hope of a manufacturer that will not enter the drm's 'fashion'
<mark_weaver>well, there's somewhat more hope in the ARM world, because ARM itself doesn't manufacture chips. they license hardware designs which are modified and produced by a large number of other manufacturers, so there's much more diversity there.
<mark_weaver>but in the long term, we really need free CPU designs, one of which is LowRISC.
<mark_weaver>Bunnie Huang is on their advisory board, and they say they have a plan to produce real silicon and inexpensive development boards, so that's all quite hopeful.
<antiatom>Devuan is trying to be the replacement for Debian without systemd, but I think it needs something else to stand out
<antiatom>Maybe Guix can offer that something else
<jsgrant>ACTION still finds it odd that there is people out there (not saying antiatom , but I've heard many people elude to the following claim) that as if GNU is actively trying to implement some sort of OEM-like system that will actively ban non-free software, and one is somehow not able to edit/turn off, etc.
<jsgrant>It's an ethical imperative to for free-software, not to run non-free, but that doesn't mean actively limiting a user's freedom to make what some would call "bad choices" and all that.
<antiatom>jsgrant: I am not saying GNU bans non-libre software, in fact I am really enthusiastic about Guix including only libre packages and being very explicit the license of each package
<jsgrant>antiatom: Yeah, that's why I put that disclaimer probably ruling you out of this of this club -- it's just sadly not that rare of a view, and I don't get where people get this impression from.
<nextstep>I think it's sometimes acceptable to run proprietary firmware, as a temporary solution
<nextstep>if you don't control the hardware that gets purchased
<jsgrant>mark_weaver: Building Guix and related depends will likely be painful though (I heard it's aprox Raspberry Pi level of performance), though iirc you built a fair amount on MIPS via a Yeelong? If true, I'm sure that wasn't trivial.
<mark_weaver>the Novena is *vastly* faster and more powerful than an RPi (which is also terrible from a freedom standpoint, btw)
<mark_weaver>oh, it will surely be many years at least, and people's expectations in a comfortable desktop environment will also change during that same time.
<mark_weaver>I certainly can't answer that question with any confidence.
<mark_weaver>I suppose "universal assemblers" from molecular nanotechnology could change the game fundamentally, but it's really unclear what policy will be adopted around things like that.
<jsgrant>mark_weaver: Do you think people with side with the safer, more ethically sound option if we are still confined to producing "Free-Hardware" on Silicone while the big companies are doing something like quantum tech that is like 1000x faster (making a lot of assumptions here obviously).
<mark_weaver>and the entire world seems to be moving toward plutocracy
<mark_weaver>anything could happen. I think life as we know it is going to change radically as I result of our new technical capabilities and the evolving political situation, and probably not for the better.