On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 11:00 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > For some unknown reason, I thought that riscv64 *was* an official > Debian architecture, and the tone of my previous emails should be > read with that (incorrect) assumption in mind. riscv64 is in the process of becoming an official port and then hopefully a released port for bookworm, but isn't quite there yet, the folks who are involved are looking at the remaining steps from the new port docs. Repro-builds is in the official port section, after the step of converting from unofficial to official and before the step of applying to become a released port. Since repro builds doesn't test unofficial ports and is a blocker for testing migration, I think this is the right section of the new port docs, feel free to adjust the advice if you disagree. Probably this thread was started prematurely due to the enthusiasm of the port advocates for making the port available in bookworm and are perhaps looking a few steps too far ahead in the steps of the process. https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New#Unofficial_port https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New#Official_port https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New#Released_port -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part