Hello, Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan....@free.fr> skribis:
> It happens that I tried to package Rust, as an introduction to Guix. > Here is my version, inspired by the Haskell package, where Rust 1.10.0 > is built, bootstrapped by a binary version of rustc 1.9.0. It uses the > "cc" wrapper trick previously presented. As you might have seen from previous discussions, we try hard to reduce the number of binary blobs needed to bootstrap packages, such that we have a full source-to-binary path that everyone can audit. Unfortunately, this usually hard to achieve for self-hosted compilers. Do you know what’s Rust’s bootstrapping story is? Can we reasonably expect to bootstrap it from source, using a series of previous Rust versions, or using an alternative implementation? > Some questions, though: > > 1. I can compile a sample program in a guix environment created using > `guix environment gcc glibc binutils rust`, but the program > generated fails to run because libgcc_s.so.1 can not be found. How can > it be added to the environment? As Andreas notes, ‘gcc-toolchain’, which includes ‘ld-wrapper’, should fix this. Does Rust use GCC, or just ld? > 2. Having a Rust compiler is cool, but having Cargo, the Rust package > manager, would be even better. Cargo is also bootstrapped, and it is > also built using zillions of crates (Rust packages) downloaded from the > Internet. How could this case be handled in Guix? Assuming Cargo itself is just a regular Rust program, it should be possible to make a Guix package of Cargo. Then, Guix users can install it and use it the normal way; we won’t be able to use Cargo in package recipes though, because our package build environments purposefully lacks network access. Besides, I would encourage you or anyone interested to write a crate importer, like we do for most other language packages: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Invoking-guix-import.html Having crates available as normal Guix packages is the best option for Guix users: uniform interface, the ability to use ‘guix environment’ and all the tools, transactional upgrade and rollback, etc. > From fb1fbc92cd68331b3dea94c238274f8a01b98afa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan....@free.fr> > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:09:01 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] gnu: Add rust > > * gnu/packages/rust.scm(rust): New variable. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Le Bihan <eric.le.bihan....@free.fr> Apart from the bootstrapping thing discussed above, this looks good to me (and a great first package!). > + ;; Tell where to find libgcc_s.so > + (setenv "LD_LIBRARY_PATH" (string-append gcc-lib "/lib")) “LIBRARY_PATH” may be enough. > + ;; Remove reference to "/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2" from binary > + (zero? (system* > + "patchelf" > + "--set-interpreter" ld-so > + (string-append (getcwd) "/rustc/bin/rustc"))) “rustc/bin/rustc” is enough here. > + (add-before 'build 'pre-build > + (lambda _ > + (let* ((bindir (string-append (getcwd) "/bin")) > + (cc (string-append bindir "/cc"))) > + (mkdir bindir) > + (call-with-output-file cc > + (lambda (port) > + (format port > + "#!~a\n\nexec gcc \"$@\"\n" (which > "sh")))) > + (chmod cc #o755)))) Can we avoid this trick using a configure flag (--with-compiler=/path/to/gcc) or a configure or environment variable (CC=gcc)? If not, that’s fine. > + (replace 'build > + (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys) > + (setenv "PATH" > + (string-append (getcwd) "/bin:" (getenv "PATH"))) > + (mkdir (assoc-ref outputs "out")) > + (zero? (system* "make"))))) Rather do: (add-before 'build 'change-PATH (lambda _ (setenv …) #t)) so we can reuse the normal ‘build’ phase, which passes -jX to ‘make’. > + #:tests? #f)) We normally run test suites, unless we have a good reason not to do so. :-) Any ideas why “make check” fails? Thanks! Ludo’.
