• 𝕨𝕒𝕤𝕒𝕓𝕚
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We can. The point is that Windows users can’t compile for arm. They depend on the Dev to to it. That will take some time and some won’t do it at all.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Aha. I see so many Docker projects with examples of how to build for ARM, I just assumed it was always that easy.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s easy to compile something for a certain infrastructure if you can compile it yourself and won’t have to beg another party to do so.

      • Daeraxa@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Is that a developer licence thing? I know GitHub recently announced Windows Arm runners that would be available to non-teams/enterprise tiers later this year.

        • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          It isn’t as simple as just compiling. Large programs like games then need to be tested to make sure the code doesn’t have bugs on ARM. Developers often use assembly to optimize performance, so those portions would need to be rewritten as well. And Apple has been the only large install of performant ARM consumer hardware on anything laptop or desktop windows. So, there hasn’t been a strong install base to even encourage many developers to port their stuff to windows on ARM.

          • Daeraxa@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Yeah this has been our (well, my) statement on requests to put out ARM binaries for Pulsar. Typically we only put binaries out for systems we actually have within the team so we can test on real hardware and replicate issues. I would be hesitant to put out Windows ARM builds when, as far as I know, we don’t have such a device. If there was a sudden clamouring for it then we could maybe purchase a device out of the funds pot.

            The reason I was asking more about if it was to do with developer licences is that we have already dealt with differences between x86 and ARM macOS builds because the former seems to happily run unsigned apps after a few clicks, where the latter makes you run commands in the terminal - not a great user experience.

            That is why I was wondering if the ARM builds for Windows required signing else they would just refuse to install on consumer ARM systems at all. The reason we don’t sign at the moment is just because of the exorbitant cost of the certificates - something we would have to re-evaluate if signing became a requirement.