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
--
technical-board mailing list
technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
