From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E1E939D4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:32:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E0D454356
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:32:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:32:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 26DA447F65;
 Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:32:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:32:04 +0100 (CET)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Tianyu Chen <billchenchina2001@gmail.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Zenithal <i@zenithal.me>
Message-ID: <1720488798.1037.1676989924484@webmail.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev32
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.126 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] Building proxmox on riscv64 Debian Sid
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:32:06 -0000

> Tianyu Chen <billchenchina2001@gmail.com> hat am 21.02.2023 13:53 CET geschrieben:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:14:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> 
> > You can build from that, or, since they're actually source-only
> > packages, you could fixup the architecture on the deb files from our
> > bullseye repo directly (dpkg-deb --extract, sed, dpkg-deb --build) and
> > use it that way ;-)
> 
> Haha dpkg-deb --extract is a nice trick! I've done it before for some
> packages. debcargo use `Architecture: any` for librust-*-dev files but I
> believe they could be installed for `all`.

there's actually a reason for that - having librust-*-dev as arch:any is required for cross-compiling/multi-arch support (not something we do (yet) in Proxmox, but relevant for Debian), where arch:all would pull in non-rust transitive build dependencies from the wrong arch.