GNU bug report logs - #62643
[PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 62643 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 62643 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 2023 16:00:11 +0200

* gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly known as
"rust-1.65".
---

Hi,

This patch allows to install the latest Rust, here 1.65, while the default
Rust used by the cargo build system is 'rust' (here 1.60).  Instead of,

    guix shell -e '(@@ (gnu packages rust) rust-1.65)'

it allows "guix shell rust-next"; similarly as emacs vs emacs-next.

Cheers,
simon

 gnu/packages/rust.scm | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/rust.scm b/gnu/packages/rust.scm
index 133c46fb7c..f39a7faac9 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/rust.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/rust.scm
@@ -641,12 +641,16 @@ (define rust-1.64
                     (string-append name "\"" ,%cargo-reference-hash "\"")))
                  (generate-all-checksums "vendor"))))))))))
 
-(define rust-1.65
+;;; Note: Updating Rust is a core-updates change and so the package defined as
+;;; 'rust' cannot always be the latest version.  This package 'rust-next' is
+;;; the latest version of Rust.
+(define-public rust-next
   (let ((base-rust
          (rust-bootstrapped-package
           rust-1.64 "1.65.0" "0f005kc0vl7qyy298f443i78ibz71hmmh820726bzskpyrkvna2q")))
     (package
       (inherit base-rust)
+      (name "rust-next")
       (source
        (origin
          (inherit (package-source base-rust))

base-commit: 1d0158ab9036cff7737cbfb1678f876ae67c4ac2
-- 
2.38.1

Message #8 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
To: "Simon Tournier" <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, <62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Cc: efraim <at> flashner.co.il
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 19:13:11 +0100

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

Hi Simon,

On Mon Apr 3, 2023 at 3:00 PM BST, Simon Tournier wrote:
> * gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly known as
> "rust-1.65".

For the reasons I outlined in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>, we can't
just export RUST-1.65 as RUST-NEXT, unfortunately...

    -- (

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
Cc: efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#62643: [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:05:24 -0400

Hi,

"(" <paren <at> disroot.org> writes:

> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon Apr 3, 2023 at 3:00 PM BST, Simon Tournier wrote:
>> * gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly known as
>> "rust-1.65".
>
> For the reasons I outlined in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>, we can't
> just export RUST-1.65 as RUST-NEXT, unfortunately...

Agreed.  If there is a need for newer public rust version, please go
through the maintainers' note above the 'rust' variable:

;;; 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.

Usually the whole collection keeps building with the latest rust version
as it's backward compatible, I think, so it's not as much work as it may
look like.

OK to close?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #14 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
To: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#62643: [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:08:49 +0300

On Monday, 3 April 2023 23:05:24 IDT Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> "(" <paren <at> disroot.org> writes:
> > Hi Simon,
> > 
> > On Mon Apr 3, 2023 at 3:00 PM BST, Simon Tournier wrote:
> >> * gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly
> >> known as "rust-1.65".
> > 
> > For the reasons I outlined in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>, we
> > can't just export RUST-1.65 as RUST-NEXT, unfortunately...
> 
> Agreed.  If there is a need for newer public rust version, please go
> through the maintainers' note above the 'rust' variable:
> 
> ;;; 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.
> 
> Usually the whole collection keeps building with the latest rust version
> as it's backward compatible, I think, so it's not as much work as it may
> look like.
> 
> OK to close?

I'd rather work on upgrading the whole rust ecosystem packaged in Guix than 
keep a newer version of rust working while fielding questions about why it's 
not yet the default.

Message #17 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
Cc: efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 22:51:04 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>>> * gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly known as
>>> "rust-1.65".
>>
>> For the reasons I outlined in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>, we can't
>> just export RUST-1.65 as RUST-NEXT, unfortunately...

I understand that the current rust-1.65 is unusable by itself because it
misses some part as explained by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>.

However, I do not understand that…

> Agreed.  If there is a need for newer public rust version, please go
> through the maintainers' note above the 'rust' variable:
>
> ;;; Note: Only the latest versions of Rust are supported and tested.

How 1.60 could be the latest compared to 1.65?

Said differently, why 1.65 is packaged if it is unusable?  Even, what is
the point to maintain 1.61, 1.62, 1.63, 1.64 and 1.65 if they are
unexported and unusable?  These 5 versions are not part of the bootstrap
of 1.60.

If the work for updating the Rust ecosystem is a work in progress and
this work is currently in the middle, why is it not done in a dedicated
branch?

Cheers,
simon

Message #20 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
Cc: efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 22:53:32 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> OK to close?

Yes. :-)

Although the confusion pointed by #62064 [1] is not fixed.

1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/62064


Cheers,
simon

Message #23 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "\(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:49:40 -0400

Hi Simon,

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

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> * gnu/packages/rust.scm (rust-next): New exported variable, formerly known as
>>>> "rust-1.65".
>>>
>>> For the reasons I outlined in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>, we can't
>>> just export RUST-1.65 as RUST-NEXT, unfortunately...
>
> I understand that the current rust-1.65 is unusable by itself because it
> misses some part as explained by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62064#5>.
>
> However, I do not understand that…
>
>> Agreed.  If there is a need for newer public rust version, please go
>> through the maintainers' note above the 'rust' variable:
>>
>> ;;; Note: Only the latest versions of Rust are supported and tested.
>
> How 1.60 could be the latest compared to 1.65?

Perhaps it was an oversight, or preparation for the next bump?  (getting
to know the hash and any new inputs needed, etc., without doing the
actual work of migrating the leaf rust definition to the latest rust).

> Said differently, why 1.65 is packaged if it is unusable?  Even, what is
> the point to maintain 1.61, 1.62, 1.63, 1.64 and 1.65 if they are
> unexported and unusable?  These 5 versions are not part of the bootstrap
> of 1.60.

See above justification.  It's an internal package.  You won't find it
at the CLI, so you can't really say that "it's packaged" :-).

> If the work for updating the Rust ecosystem is a work in progress and
> this work is currently in the middle, why is it not done in a dedicated
> branch?

With the new teams flow, I hope that can be used for that way too.  I'd
prefer always having the leaf rust package exported and no newer
trailing but not there yet variants.

I think we all agree.  We just need a champion to do it :-).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #30 received at 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "\(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:53:57 -0400

Hello,

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

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK to close?
>
> Yes. :-)
>
> Although the confusion pointed by #62064 [1] is not fixed.
>
> 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/62064

That is a question more than a problem (the real problem being that our
rust is old -- 1.60), which I think we have already discussed and agreed
is sub-optimal and probably stemmed from a misunderstanding :-).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #33 received at 62643-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "\(" <paren <at> disroot.org>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 62643-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:47:29 +0200

Hi Maxim,

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 23:53, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>> 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/62064
>
> That is a question more than a problem (the real problem being that our
> rust is old -- 1.60), which I think we have already discussed and agreed
> is sub-optimal and probably stemmed from a misunderstanding :-).

I am closing this one and I will close the other one since the work is
clear: champion the Rust ecosystem upgrade. :-)

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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