GNU bug report logs - #62064
Why is only rust-1.60 exported when 1.65 is defined?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Jonas Møller <jonas <at> moesys.no>
Subject: bug#62064: closed (Re: bug#62064: Why is only rust-1.60 exported
 when 1.65 is defined?)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 05:03:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#62064: Why is only rust-1.60 exported when 1.65 is defined?

which was filed against the guix package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 62064 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
62064: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62064
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "\(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, 62064-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Jonas Møller <jonas <at> moesys.no>
Subject: Re: bug#62064: Why is only rust-1.60 exported when 1.65 is defined?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:02:25 -0500

tags 62064 + notabug
quit

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 21:11, paren--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> There's another important reason:
>>
>>   rust != rust-1.60
>
> Well, as discussed in [1]
>
>     [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
>
> this report #62064 is not a bug but instead a wish list: upgrade the
> Rust ecosystem.  Therefore, I am in favor to close it.  WDYT?

Done.  We're currently at rust 1.73 on core-updates.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Jonas Møller <jonas <at> moesys.no>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Why is only rust-1.60 exported when 1.65 is defined?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 16:09:32 +0000

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Guix! The rust.scm file says

> ;;; Note: Only the latest versions of Rust are supported and tested. The
> ;;; intermediate rusts are built for bootstrapping purposes and should not
> ;;; be relied upon. This is to ease maintenance and reduce the time
> ;;; required to build the full Rust bootstrap chain.
> ;;;
> ;;; Here we take the latest included Rust, make it public, and re-enable tests
> ;;; and extra components such as rustfmt.

And then proceeds to define-public rust as rust-1.60, and I was wondering if there's any particular reason why a year-old version is used rather than the 1.65 version. This seems like a mistake, given that the comment claims that the "latest included Rust" should be made public.

This is especially troublesome for Rust on Guix because of both how fast its ecosystem moves onto new language/tooling features, and because using rustup (the solution for this on other slow-moving distros) relies on pre-built executables that don't work out-of-the-box on Guix.

— Mvh Jonas Møller

[Message part 5 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.