/cc @swift-kim @HJLeee

Tagging subscribers to this area: @safern, @ViktorHofer
Notify danmosemsft if you want to be subscribed.

cc: @ericstj -- since tizen5.5.0 doesn't define arm64 RID, is the best to just suppress the errors?

I believe you can fix the error by only listing the version in a single runtimegroup, as was done with rhel.

So instead of

    <RuntimeGroup Include="tizen">
      <Parent>linux</Parent>
      <Architectures>x86;armel</Architectures>
      <Versions>4.0.0;5.0.0;5.5.0;6.0.0</Versions>
    </RuntimeGroup>
    <RuntimeGroup Include="tizen">
      <Parent>linux</Parent>
      <Architectures>arm64</Architectures>
      <Versions>6.0.0</Versions>
    </RuntimeGroup>

Do

    <RuntimeGroup Include="tizen">
      <Parent>linux</Parent>
      <Architectures>x86;armel</Architectures>
      <Versions>4.0.0;5.0.0;5.5.0</Versions>
    </RuntimeGroup>
    <RuntimeGroup Include="tizen">
      <Parent>linux</Parent>
      <Architectures>x86;armel;arm64</Architectures>
      <Versions>6.0.0</Versions>
    </RuntimeGroup>

@ericstj If version 6.0.0 is separated, the version will not be able to include the lower versions. So I just added arm64 to all tizen versions. I don't want to limit some possibilities.

I see. It looks like this is the same way we handled it with win. This is probably the best way for now. If you want to create a better way to deal with this you could make a change here https://github.com/dotnet/arcade/blob/master/src/Microsoft.DotNet.Build.Tasks.Packaging/src/GenerateRuntimeGraph.cs.

@ericstj Thanks for the advice. As of now, I want to open the possibility of arm64 support in lower tizen versions.