the syntax issue was definitely solved., but the original topic was my intent: deploy multiple architectures to the store . I would probably add “without build.snapcraft.io” since that seems to be part of the confusion.
The only reason i was continuing on my discussion was because I wanted to know the correct way to future proof my configuration.
I am no longer confused as to why I was experiencing issues during cross staging. I think most take for granted the fact that build.snapcraft does builds natively on each architecture (per @lucyllewy statement "It will build on systems of each of the three architectures ") I also assume based on @sergiusens last response if I had done my builds on armhf or arm64, I would had more initial success.
It seems in my opinion, staging is a bit wonky when targeting different architectures other than the native. If there are fixes / changes for this I would be willing to test them if needed.
That’s fine, we’re happy to discuss any issues related to snaps here in the forum. We just try to organize them in well defined topics so that we can refer to these conversations later and so that the right people will look into your questions and try to participate. If you have any other concerns that are unrelated to your original question and that was discussed and solved, then just open another topic and let’s continue there.
I think you are missing the point… this whole discussion is on topic since my question was How is one supposed to create a snap for multiple architectures with the title and error messaging indicating it was related to the store.
the whole architecture syntax stuff is (if im not mistaken) not even a “best practice”, (based on @lundmar, @lucyllewy, @sergiusens )
now the the only thing off topic is the title. I would change it back back or alter to include something about multi-arch it, but i don’t seem to be able
