On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Luke Jones wrote:
Hi all,
I was recently added to the maintainer role for the rust compiler devel project; as rust is something I use daily, I feel I am a good fit for the task.
I would now like to raise some discussion about the current state of packaging for Rust. At present the build process is relying on the previous version of Rust being packaged with a naming scheme of 'rustc-1_11' for example, which is used for building the next version of Rust.
The issue I have with this is that we will end up with a large amount of previous versions at some point, along with a long list of obsoletes/provides in the spec files. The way I would like to counter this is by; 1. including the bootstrap tarball (for each arch) with the src rpm. 2. use the bootstrap tarballs to build the current compiler version 3. use spec file functionality to choose which tarball arch to use based on the cpu arch being built for.
I think that's the worst thing to do and is going to be rejected by legal review as well I guess.
To elaborate a bit I do not see the need to work around the requirement of an existing rust compiler -- in fact we require GCC to built GCC as well. If there is a complication with the Stagings in the Factory build process with regarding to packages having such bootstrap issues and that are not in Ring:0 then it has to be solved there IMHO and not worked around by putting binaries in sources... So I suppose the "easiest" is to put rustc into Ring:0. I see Factory has rustc-stage0 already (containing something that looks like binaries). But that looks like a hack to me -- a better "hack" would be to have an _aggregate in rusts "Ring" aggregating from full Factory (like how we aggregate the initial Ring:0 for bootstrapping). Richard.
Richard.
At this point I feel this is the best course of action to prevent future issues, it also has the benefit of the source rpm providing all the needed sources to build that version of Rust, rather than relying on a previously packaged version. It's a little extra work, but would be worth doing.
I will get a trial package up in the next few days to see how it goes, then if all is okay and other agree with it, I'll switch over the official rpm build to that.
Regards, Luke.
-- Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org