[06:02] <juergh> xnox, I don't really want/need riscv mainline builds but kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline is confusing as it claims the build succeeded but there are no kernel packages. This will eventually lead to questions being asked...
[07:57] <xnox> juergh:  would it have helped, or caused more confusing, if linux-libc-dev riscv64 alone was published?
[08:00] <apw> xnox, i could publish that, it wouldn't be difficult
[08:00] <juergh> xnox, why so mainline builds for riscv at all then? when it's not really useful?
[08:00] <juergh> s/so/do/
[08:01] <apw> juergh, it is simply the way the builds work, they build what foo:linux builds in the nearest ubuntu series to the kernel version
[08:01] <apw> juergh, as risvc is pulled out for performance reasons we don't have the config at the time we build
[08:02] <apw> the control file for impish:linux lists riscv so it gets built.  that happens to only produce linux-libc-dev
[08:03] <apw> and it only does that in :linux because other bits of the foundation loses its mind if linux-libc-dev isn't at a consisten
[08:03] <apw> version across all architectures.
[08:08] <juergh> apw, I understand but the regular user who comes across that URL probably doesn't. I don't really care, just trying to avoid potential confusion. publishing libc won't help IMO. we shouldn't build for arches that don't provide packages but again, just my opinion. but then again the expectations might be different. we use it as a sandbox to spot early problems for our builds and users simply want mainline kernels for ubuntu. so ignore me. all is 
[08:08] <juergh> good :-)
[08:09] <apw> the core build engine is used for both yes, and we do want those listed so we know that a changeset build is good
[08:09] <apw> but ... we could also list it as a libc-dev only build or something
[08:39] <xnox> i'd guess if libc-dev only builds are not interesting enough, maybe we could even skip building those too.
[08:40] <xnox> although it helps us a bit, since we need i386 one, as many/most people have it installed, and thus if they want to install mainline builds they do actually need i386 libc-dev package too..... if we actually bother to publish them.
[09:05] <apw> you don't normally update your libc-dev, you want the oldest version of that you have potential for a kernel for
[09:05] <apw> so that you only use features which are in all of them