Hi, Just a minor correction/detail (not very related to the core part of your post, sorry if it feels off-topic)... 2018-07-19 18:06 Lars Wirzenius:
https://blog.liw.fi/posts/2018/07/19/building_debian_packages_in_ci_ick/) [...] In the future, that list may be expanded by having builds for several architectures: * foo 1.2, built for unstable, on amd64 * foo 1.2, built for Debian 9, on amd64 * foo 1.2, built for Debian 8, on amd64 * foo 1.2, built for unstable, on riscv * foo 1.2, built for Debian 9, on riscv * foo 1.2, built for Debian 8, on riscv [...] * `foo_1.2-1_amd64.deb` — binary package for unstable, amd64 * `foo_1.2-1_riscv.deb` — binary package for unstable, riscv
Just to point out that the arch name is "riscv64" and not "riscv", also in the blog entry packages would be *_riscv64.deb instead of _riscv.deb. Why? There are 32-bit and 128-bit versions of the ISA, 128-bit is a bit far-fetched today but riscv32 maybe not so, just that nobody was interested so far. So the -64 was always considered as part of the name from the start. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>