Re: rust - volunteers sought...

[pin <voidpin%protonmail.com@localhost>]

On Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 1:32 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:

> Yes, but this is a bug in the rust world, not a bug in pkgsrc. It's
> basically a consequence of thinking that the combination of a singleton
> implementation (effectively) and an unstable language spec is ok.

Yes but, as you say below, they won't listen to it.

> We merely have to work around what is wrong with rust - as you are
> doing. (Not sure why you said "force": do you mean a package that
> builds with 1.76 and not 1.77.2, or a package that expects new and
> you've patched it to be ok with older??)

I mean the package has MSRV = 1.77.2 and I've patched it to use 1.76.0.


> > So, if we are versioning, I think it would be good with a 'list of
> > packages' expected to build on a 'list of platforms'.
> 
> 
> Agreed. Basically:
> 
> we define a set of core platforms where we expect rust to work. That
> might be amd64, i386, earmv7, aarch64. It might be more, but I'm not sure.
> 
> we keep track of the lowest version in use by any of the above
> 
> when a rust-using program is updated, it should have been built/tested
> with that lowest version, generally

Then, we have a problem.
I only use/have amd64

> 
> we might decide for some particular program to throw some platform
> overboard