<mark_weaver>hmm, I wonder if I move my hard drive from my X60 to my X200, if I could then fairly easily upgrade it to an x86_64 system in place by running something like $(guix build --system=x86_64-linux guix)/bin/guix system reconfigure
<jxself>mark_weaver: Had time to review the log. I see you're applying more patches than I am. I thought fchmmr was only pushing for a single patch? Now to go find out what this patch does. Had I known this other patch existed I would have been testing for it.
<mark_weaver>jxself: the other patch was needed to fix warnings that repeatedly generated kernel backtraces.
<mark_weaver>the list of patches is just below the hash that you have to update when you update the guix package
<jxself>Doesn't mean I notice. I had no idea this patch existed. I don't recall any communications. Oh sure there was probably commit messages but who read them? Thanks!
<mark_weaver>jxself: well, there's no need to notice anything if you try building the package in guix :)
<mark_weaver>it failed while trying to apply the patch, before the compile even began.
<mark_weaver>if you don't want to test build in guix, that's okay, I still appreciate your work. but in that case, it might be better to post the patch so that one of us can test it before pushing.
<jxself>Or just talk to me. I'm not necessarily going to pick up on commit emails. But yeah, it seems that the patch isn't needed anymore for 4.0 and can be removed. I'll leave that up to you since you added it.
<mark_weaver>yes, I removed it. the same patch was already applied upstream
<fchmmr><mark_weaver> jxself: the other patch was needed to fix warnings that repeatedly generated kernel backtraces.
<davexunit>"we want the maintainers of various Linux distros to have sufficient confidence in on-going availability to use our motherboards to power their build farms, thereby ensuring timely software updates for our entire userbase."
<davexunit>might be a reference to us or other distros that want to use Novenas for their build farm