Hello! > librsvg has rewritten substantial fractions of its code upstream in > Rust. It won't be the last such library or package to do so.
Well, I wouldn't bet on that. I know that a lot of people have the feeling that rewriting everything in Rust will solve all problems in software we have nowadays but that's not the case. Rewriting large projects is associated with a high cost and not many companies are willing to pay for that. Also, there have already been several vulnerabilities in Rust and Cargo as well, so the safety is not really an argument. C++ is also getting safer as a language. Furthermore, Rust is anything but stable. If you check the version in experimental, it already has regressed again on multiple architectures: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=rustc&suite=experimental You'll have fun fixing those regressions again. I will probably stay away for a while focusing on other projects after this experience. > librsvg sat in experimental for months, precisely *because* the maintainer > knew that > such a change could potentially be disruptive, and wanted to properly > integrate it into Debian. But the new upstream version fundamentally > depends on Rust. I'm well aware why it sat in experimental. That's not what I criticized. > Running old versions of a library is not a viable long-term strategy. > Attempting to find alternatives written in C is not a viable long-term > strategy either; that's running in the wrong direction. Ultimately, the > new version will need uploading to Debian, and an architecture that > wants to run a full desktop, or for that matter a server or embedded > environment, will need to have LLVM support and Rust support. I know that. That's why I also criticized the upstream developer, of librsvg, who happens to be a colleague of mine at SUSE, who was responsible for that change. Will be interesting to see what will happen in the future when the rustified version of librsvg will try move into the enterprise distributions. Having just checked, it's not part of SLE-15. You already get an idea of the headache for LTS distributions with the changes necessary for Firefox 60 in Debian Stretch. SLE-16 could be fun. > I think it's reasonable for the *first* such library being uploaded to > wait a little while to coordinate, which it did. It didn't even wait for Rust to stabilize on the architectures it was recently bootstrapped for. There was no guarantee the Rust compiler will work on arm32 or mips32 in the foreseeable future. The rules file already has to make use of workarounds to get the Rust compiler to build natively on these architectures at all: > https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/rust/blob/debian/sid/debian/rules#L158 Given the fact that Rust upstream is always introducing a significant number of changes with each release, there is quite a chance of regressions of the compiler on these architectures. > I don't, however, think it's reasonable to wait indefinitely. No one was saying that. But I think it's more reasonable to wait for the Rust compiler to stabilize before making half of your distribution dependent on it. There is still no Rust-stable branch in sight which is most certainly a requirement for Rust to be part of enterprise distributions. I know the QA processes associated for SLES to update packages in a release version and I could imagine that it's not anything less involved for RHEL or other enterprise distributions. It seems that Rust upstream has not had any of the enterprise and long-term support distributions in mind yet. They seem to assume that distributions can just always use the latest upstream versions. > If even more coordination had taken place than what already did, > what would have been the expected outcome? A Rust compiler that doesn't regress every six weeks, maybe? > I think the correct answer *was* "it works on the release > architectures", Again, that was a snapshot of the situation. I'm expecting to see more regressions again in the future. > precisely because if non-release architectures need to > keep an outdated version while working on porting efforts, they'll > automatically do so, and that shouldn't impede those architectures too > much as long as other packages don't start depending specifically on > functionality from the new librsvg. (And if packages do start having > such dependencies, they'll get held back too.) Debian Ports doesn't support the cruft mechanism that DAK supports. We're lucky that the librsvg-common package is of arch any, otherwise librsvg would already been uninstallable in Debian Ports. So, this is just pure luck. Please don't make such statements when you're not aware of the differences between Debian's release and ports architectures. > Approaching the problem from a different angle: what help is needed > getting a viable LLVM and Rust development environment for more > architectures? There are open reviews for LLVM, for example: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856 > https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858 And a bug in Rust: > https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49773 > Speaking with an upstream Rust hat on in addition to a > Debian hat: what could Rust do to make life easier for porters? Please provide an actual stable version of the Rust compiler that is supported in the long term and can be shipped by enterprise distributions. > And what could Debian's *considerable* expertise in porting do to make that > more > sustainable upstream? (As an example, it might help if upstream Rust > folks had access to machines for more architectures, though that's a > side issue for having an LLVM port in the first place.) Debian Ports has worked closely with QEMU upstream to help make significant improvements to that emulator. So, in most cases, Rust developers can just use QEMU for the first porting efforts. But there are also porterboxes available from gcc to which we from Debian Ports also have provided hardware, for example: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
