On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 10:01:26AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > I think this is the wrong direction (ie, backwards). > > Sacrificing current code to be compatible with old stuff feels wrong. > Especially for really old, like rustc in debian bookworm. > > bookworm has rustc-web (and a few related packages) which is regular > rustc version 1.78, just renamed. It is regular bookworm, not backports. > It has some packages disabled (compared to regular rust) and is a hack, > but it exists and can be used for now (dunno if it is sufficient for > qemu though). > > Also debian has backports mechanism, which also can be used for qemu - > I can try back-porting regular rust (and llvm) to bookworm. > > I think this is a better way (at least a way forward) than trying to > move backwards. > > But generally, what is the reason to support debian stable? I understand > the CI thing, - we need a way to test stuff. For this, I'd say a better > alternative would be to target debian testing (currently trixie), not > debian stable.
The stable distros are what our community of contributors are usually using, as few people want non-released bleeding edge distros as their primary development platform. Custom installing latest upstream pieces is not a user friendly position to take. Occassionally it is unavoidable, but it is something to be avoided wherever practical. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
