Concept ACK.

Concept ACK, but after the 22.0 release. I think it makes sense to wait until we have done a successful GUIX release before dropping all gitian support.

@laanwj

but after the 22.0 release.

Not arguing, just noticing that in the current state gitian builds do not pass symbol check. If gitian remains in the repo for 22.0 release, it must be fixed with #22281, #22287, #22305, #22318, #22321.

Hope to discuss this topic today.

I don't think it matters when this is merged. Even if this is removed for 22.0, calling git revert 2338298190 if needed should be trivial because there can't be any conflicts.

If gitian remains in the repo for 22.0 release, it must be fixed with #22281, #22287, #22305, #22318, #22321.

I would very much rather avoid all of those PRs. Even more back compat code, and hacking up our dependencies to fix a system that currently, we aren't even going to use for the release, and if gitian is going to be removed then it'd all just have to be reverted / removed.

Why not have gitian do the guix build? I know at least one person has mentioned previously that they preferred that.

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #22708 ([PoC] build, qt: Add Wayland support for Linux builds with depends by hebasto)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

Not arguing, just noticing that in the current state gitian builds do not pass symbol check. If gitian remains in the repo for 22.0 release, it must be fixed with #22281, #22287, #22305, #22318, #22321.

Agree, I am aware it is broken at the moment and I'm not arguing that it should be fixed up right now, I'd just prefer to wait with removing gitian completely until a successful release with guix has been done.

Once we've been through the whole process (updating it where necessary) and no unexpected snags turn up (including with people testing the rcs), merging this is fine.

Code review ACK ab9c342