Re: rust update proposal

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> My proposal:
>
> - Import (most of) lang/rust as lang/rust176 (to follow the existing
>   naming convention from wip)
>
> - Update lang/rust to 1.79
>
> - In lang/rust/buildlink3.mk, add per-platform inclusion logic for
>   using lang/rust176 for those platforms that are not working with
>   1.79 (perhaps checking for RUST_REQ<=1.76 before doing that, and
>   setting BROKEN (or one of the other variables for this) if not).
>
> - Make sure that packages requiring 1.77+ set RUST_REQ correctly so
>   that we save on bulk build cycles.

This seems ok, except that we probably need to version cargo-c as pin@
points out.

> (When someone fixes the platform support, we can roll back part of
> these changes and/or remove rust176.)

or leave it as an example and just not use it, so that next time this
happens it is easier.  Even if we work through these issues, we have no
hope of fixing the structural issues of how the rust project behaves.


There's another problem, which is that we should be heading to
reproducible buidls, like guix, but rust (from the rust project) is
militating against sane repoducibility by requiring N-1.  From that POV
ideally we'd have rustNN for every NN in the tree, depending on the
previous.  Or maybe gcc-rust will be saner.