On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:03:05PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 18:22, Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 2024-01-25 at 00:24 +0000, Wookey wrote: > > > > > >> People keep telling us (@ARM) how marvellous Rust is, and we keep > > >> telling them that it's useless in the real world until it sorts out > > >> the stable ABI/dynamic linking problem. > > > > > > IIRC that has been worked on for some years now, and IIRC > > > the static linking wiki page has some references about this. > > > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking > > > > This reminded me that I'm not even sure that I fully understand what > > Rust's remaining technical obstacles to achieving dynamic linking (at > > least within Debian) are. I'm ignoring the potential cultural or > > political issues that have been alluded to by others. My understanding – > > and please do correct me! – has been that three components are missing: > > > > (1) A stable ABI. > <...> > > From Debian's perspective, is really (1) all that important given that a > > stable release only has to deal with a specific version of the compiler? > > Could we not live with every new version of *just* rustc in sid > > introducing a transition with a rebuild of every Rust package? > > A security bug in the standard library would require rebuilding and > shipping the universe, so yeah I'm pretty sure it's quite fundamental. it would also be pretty much untenable for unstable/testing: - rustc releases every 6 weeks - rustc release N requires N or N-1 to build - we frequently need to multiple rustc uploads for a single version to iron out arch-related issues (some of which only show up when building particular crates) - we have > 2k source package in the rust- namespace alone keeping rustc somewhat current is already a big effort..
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature