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

Previous Next

Full log

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

Previous Next

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