RISC-V architecture is marked as "unofficial"

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 5/5/25 16:31, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 2025-05-05 10:23, Robie Basak wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> Riscv64 build times are also a big challenge for the security team. We 
> sometimes have to skip riscv64 when issuing emergency security updates. 
> While we do try and complete the risc64 builds at a later time as much 
> as possible, this still results in riscv64 information being absent in 
> our USNs, and our OVAL data.
> 
> I'm not sure we will be able to issue timely security updates if riscv64 
> becomes an official architecture and we don't change how we build it.
> 
> Marc.

Would we really have to change the current handling of security updates 
for riscv64 if we remove that flag "unofficial" in Launchpad?

Best regards

Heinrich