bug#54439: [PATCH core-updates] gnu: rust: Use rust-1.60.0

[Marius Bakke]

Jim Newsome <jim@jimnewsome.net> skriver:

> Hi, I'm new to this project and this code-review workflow, so please bear 
> with me :).

Welcome!  You are doing great.  :-)

> It looks like there have been a few attempts here at updating Rust, including 
> [Paul's], [Felipe's], and [my own].
>
> [Paul's]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=54439#5
> [Felipe's]: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/54475#0
> [my own]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=56684

Indeed.  :-/

> There's some discussion in this thread about using an updated mrustc and 
> using that to cut out some earlier steps of the bootstrap chain. I propose 
> leaving that out for the moment. It seems both nontrivial and orthogonal, so 
> IMO would make more sense as its own thread / patch-set, which could be 
> reviewed and merged independently, before or after this one.

This has recently been done on the 'staging' branch courtesy of Efraim.

> I think there's some confusion about where and how tests are 
> enabled/disabled. IIUC in the current baseline, they are disabled in 
> `rust-1.55`, which is the first version built with an earlier "official" rust:
>
> ```
>        ;; Only the final Rust is tested, not the intermediate bootstrap ones,
>        ;; for performance and simplicity.
>        #:tests? #f
> ```
>
> and subsequent versions inherit that via the `rust-bootstrapped-package` 
> function.
>
> The latest and public version (currently `rust-1.57`) re-enables most of the 
> tests and fixes up some things so that the tests pass.
>
> So I think the approach here when adding versions is to change the current 
> latest (1.57) to the simpler form that keeps tests disabled, add any 
> additional necessary steps, and have the test-reenabling code again in the 
> latest version.

That is my understanding too.

> 2 patches included:
>
> * First is a pure refactor to decouple  "rust-1.57" from "rust" to help avoid 
> confusion in the future.
> * Second adds 1.58, 1.59, and 1.60, and makes rust-1.60 the new rust.
>
> In the latter patch I also tried building each version with a Rust 2 versions 
> back instead of just 1 version back, to see if any can be left out. 
> Unfortunately they couldn't. I'm including some of the errors in the comments 
> for reference.

LGTM, I've pushed both patches to the 'staging' branch since Rust was
already patched there and it has not started evaluating yet.

Note: I also added a copyright line for you, hope that was okay.

Closing the issue, but feel free to continue the discussion.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature