[PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
4 participants
  • Efraim Flashner
  • Maxim Cournoyer
  • (
  • Simon Tournier
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Simon Tournier
Severity
normal
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 3 Apr 2023 16:00
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(name . Simon Tournier)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
20230403140011.294367-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com
* 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(-)

Toggle diff (26 lines)
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
(
(
( wrote on 3 Apr 2023 20:13
(address . efraim@flashner.co.il)
CRNBOYQDJIW0.3N6YPPQ9AMWEN@guix-framework
Hi Simon,

On Mon Apr 3, 2023 at 3:00 PM BST, Simon Tournier wrote:
Toggle quote (3 lines)
> * 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...

-- (
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=sTFD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 3 Apr 2023 22:05
Re: bug#62643: [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
(name . ()(address . paren@disroot.org)
87pm8kd94r.fsf_-_@gmail.com
Hi,

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

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> 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
E
E
Efraim Flashner wrote on 3 Apr 2023 22:08
10249735.nUPlyArG6x@pbp
On Monday, 3 April 2023 23:05:24 IDT Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
Toggle quote (29 lines)
> Hi,
>
> "(" <paren@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.
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 3 Apr 2023 22:51
Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
86a5zozo3r.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,

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

Toggle quote (6 lines)
>>> * 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…

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> 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
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 3 Apr 2023 22:53
865yacznzn.fsf@gmail.com
Hi,

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

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> OK to close?

Yes. :-)

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



Cheers,
simon
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 4 Apr 2023 05:49
(name . Simon Tournier)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
87h6twcnmz.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Simon,

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

Toggle quote (22 lines)
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@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).

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> 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" :-).

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> 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
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 4 Apr 2023 05:51
control message for bug #62643
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87cz4kcnjz.fsf@gmail.com
tags 62643 notabug
close 62643
quit
M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 4 Apr 2023 05:53
Re: [bug#62643] [PATCH] gnu: rust-1.65: Rename package to rust-next.
(name . Simon Tournier)(address . zimon.toutoune@gmail.com)
878rf8cnfu.fsf@gmail.com
Hello,

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

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 16:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@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
S
S
Simon Tournier wrote on 4 Apr 2023 09:47
(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)
868rf8xf5a.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Maxim,

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

Toggle quote (6 lines)
>
> 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
Closed
?