Re: ROCm on riscv64
Hi,
On 2025-10-17 21:11, Cordell Bloor wrote:
> Yes. I'll add riscv64 to the build targets for my ROCm 6.4 uploads. If
> they build, then great. If they fail, then we will accept patches.
>
> Christian Kastner suggested a while ago that we could use build profiles
> for components that depend on ROCm [1]. I wonder if the default state
> for that build profile could be adjusted on a per-platform basis so that
> we don't need to hardcode a list of architectures into every package
> that depends on ROCm?
> We can't just put the supported architecture list in a Makefile, since
> that wouldn't be able to change anything in d/control, and something
> like is-architecture-64bit isn't able to optionally change the Build-
> Depends list.
Exactly, this would be the show-stopper. Even if everything and d/rules
and binary packages in d/control could have arch support dynamically
set, the B-Ds would still need an explicit list.
> So, I wonder if the Build Profiles machinery might be a
> pathway to a clean solution such that we can still have 'best effort'
> support for unusual architectures like arm64, ppc64el, and riscv64
> without compromising the quality of our amd64 support.
I'm not a main driver of build profiles, but I would surprised if these
were to be adjusted on a per-platform basis.
A user needs to be able to apt-get source <package> and to rebuild the
package from scratch. I wouldn't even know where to begin to ensure that
this works correctly, in a global fashion.
Best,
Christian
Reply to: