RISC-V architecture is marked as "unofficial"

[Robie Basak]

On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 06:03:55AM +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
> Hi Robie, others,
> Yes - please consider marking RISC-V as an official architecture. As
> far the release process goes, we already treat them as official
> images.
> 
> And as Colin said earlier in the thread, please consider doing this
> for Questing onward and it'd be better to not touch the other stable
> releases.

Thanks! (and also to Colin and Dimitri). This gives me confidence that
this change is fine to make.

As an aside, I've been waiting over three days for a riscv64 build in
Questing[1]. Right now the queue length is apparently 47 hours[2] while
the other architectures have negligible queues. That does have a big
impact wrt. proposed migration. Perhaps we should apply some expected
standard that needs to be made before considering an architecture
"official"? I don't think we've had anything like that before, but
perhaps setting some quality expectations would be reasonable and useful
for the project so as not to have yet another cause for development pace
to slow?

Robie

[1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/calf/0.90.6-0ubuntu1/+build/30683328
[2] https://launchpad.net/builders/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20250505/71fd24b1/attachment.sig>