Add riscv64 to release binaries

[gounthar]

Release binaries currently cover x86_64, aarch64, armv7, arm, and loongarch64, but not riscv64. It would be useful to add riscv64gc-unknown-linux-musl (or the gnu variant) to the release matrix.

The change is small: one more entry in the matrix.target / include block in .github/workflows/release.yaml, plus the corresponding cross-linker package (gcc-riscv64-linux-gnu). The pattern already exists for loongarch64, so riscv64 would follow the same approach.

just builds and passes CI on native riscv64 hardware with no code changes. A proof-of-concept workflow running on riscv64 runners (v1.48.0, riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu) completed successfully: https://github.com/gounthar/just/actions/runs/23497538799

Happy to open a PR if this seems reasonable.

[casey]

Sure! I'd definitely accept a PR if it isn't too complex.

Was the riscv runner for that run self-hosted?

[gounthar]

Yes, the runner is from the RISE Project, which provides free self-hosted riscv64 runners to open source projects. An org admin installs the GitHub App (https://github.com/apps/rise-risc-v-runners), then jobs with runs-on: ubuntu-24.04-riscv are picked up automatically on bare-metal RISC-V hardware.

An alternative is cross-compilation with gcc-riscv64-linux-gnu, following the existing loongarch64 pattern in release.yaml. That avoids any dependency on external runners.

Which approach would you prefer?

[gounthar]

Correction: since this is a personal account, the app link is: https://github.com/apps/rise-risc-v-runners-personal

[casey]

I think cross-compilation is definitely preferable, to avoid the dependency on an external service.

[gounthar]

I will open a PR with cross-compilation, following the loongarch64 pattern (gcc-riscv64-linux-gnu linker, riscv64gc-unknown-linux-musl target). Validating on my fork first.