Jelle Licht <jli...@fsfe.org> writes: > I have taken the liberty to try my hand at finishing this, as I figured > it would be a good way for me to get more familiar with 'the Guix way' > of packaging things.
Thanks! Also, could you please use this email address for further CC things (I tend to avoid them completely if possible), as the @grrlz.net is no longer subscribed to the mailinglist afaik. > Wow, did I misjudge this rabbit hole though. It seems to be the case that > rust needs the (most recent) snapshotted binary stage-0 compiler as part > of the build process. This was not the case some years ago[1], but since > then, some 319 snapshots have been released. > > Now there are two approaches which might make sense to me: > > 1) We package a recent stage-0 binary (thus adding yet another random > binary to the mix) > > 2) We bootstrap all the way from the original rust compiler, written in > ocaml. This would then presumably need to be repeated for each snapshot, > leading to about 319 iterative compiler build. On my kind-of-okay i7, > compiling a single rust iteration takes about 25 to 40 minutes. This sounds expensive. Isn't there a chance to speed this up, some other developer with a small Cluster of CPUs for computing at hand? > I tentatively went with option 1, if only because I would like to see > results this decade still, and ran into several hurdles that became > quite manageable with help from the good people of #guix and > #rust-internals. One more issue yet remains: part of the rust > compilation process actually calls the 'cc linker'. This part does not > respect make flags, setenv calls or even rust's special configure flag > for setting cc. > > Option 1 does not seem feasible at this point of time, but there is some > light at the end of the tunnel: rust is at some point going to follow a > convention that will allow bootstrapping compilers via 'master from > beta, beta from stable and stable from previous stable'[2]. > > I am currently thinking of a compromise; basically, at this moment go > for option 1, and once the policy previously described is properly > implemented by the rust team, start iteratively bootstrapping rust from > that point in time. > > > tldr: If we can get 'cc' in the build environment, we can have a 'dirty' > bootstrapped rust very soon. If we want to do it properly, it might take > a lot longer. > > WDYT? > > [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8732669 > [2]: https://botbot.me/mozilla/rust-internals/2016-04-29/?page=3, look > for eddyb It's good that there seems to be light at the end, though I did not expect rust to be that challenging when I started with it to just package panopticon[0] through cargo import which needs to be written once rust is done. [0]: https://panopticon.re >>---snip-snap---- -- ♥Ⓐ ng0
