Consider supporting custom architectures

[2moe]

cargo-deb/src/manifest.rs

Lines 1179 to 1197 in 0a05980

	("aarch64", _) => "arm64",
	("mips64", "gnuabin32") => "mipsn32",
	("mips64el", "gnuabin32") => "mipsn32el",
	("mipsisa32r6", _) => "mipsr6",
	("mipsisa32r6el", _) => "mipsr6el",
	("mipsisa64r6", "gnuabi64") => "mips64r6",
	("mipsisa64r6", "gnuabin32") => "mipsn32r6",
	("mipsisa64r6el", "gnuabi64") => "mips64r6el",
	("mipsisa64r6el", "gnuabin32") => "mipsn32r6el",
	("powerpc", "gnuspe") => "powerpcspe",
	("powerpc64", _) => "ppc64",
	("powerpc64le", _) => "ppc64el",
	("riscv64gc", _) => "riscv64",
	("i586", _) | ("i686", _) | ("x86", _) => "i386",
	("x86_64", "gnux32") => "x32",
	("x86_64", _) => "amd64",
	(arm, gnueabi) if arm.starts_with("arm") && gnueabi.ends_with("hf") => "armhf",
	(arm, _) if arm.starts_with("arm") => "armel",
	(other_arch, _) => other_arch,

In debian, there are mipsel and mips64el, but not mipsr6el and mips64r6el as above.

By the way, on some distributions, if you use dpkg to install deb packages, it will require the musl-amd64 architecture instead of amd64.

I don't think relying on automated detection architecture will necessarily make everyone happy.

It will be even better, if we can configure architectures in [package.metadata.deb].

[kornelski]

Please make pull requests adding/correcting the tuples and architectures.

My philosophy with cargo deb is to work by default with just running cargo deb, so I'd prefer to fix or expand this list as necessary instead of adding manual configuration steps. There's a limited slow-changing list of architectures that both Rust and Debian support, so it shouldn't be too hard to keep up.

[stappersg]

Those who can close this issue, please do close this issue.

(An update why it should remain open would also be great.)

[2moe]

In rust 1.71.0, the target triple loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu has been promoted to tiger2.

However, different deb distributions correspond to different deb architectures for this target.

• In loongnix, it is loongarch64.
  
• In debian(ports), it is loong64.
  

They are the same target, but they correspond to different deb architectures.

You might say, I don't have a loongarch CPU, why should I be concerned about this issue?
All right. In fact, I don't have one either.
I'm just curious about how to solve this issue.

[kornelski]

What a mess with the naming. It looks like loong64 will eventually win, so I've picked that.