Thanks for that suggestion, looks like just what I needed.

I looked it up and found this:

 > The build system sets RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1. This special variable means 
to break the stability guarantees of rust: Allow using #![feature(...)] 
with a compiler that's not nightly. This should never be used except 
when bootstrapping the compiler.

Is it reasonable to dismiss that foreboding statament on the premise 
that we, as downstream, are not the ones introducing the usage of those 
unstable features and as such trust upstream to know what they are 
doing? I.e., is there an increased risk in using RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP in a 
non-nightly compiler (the proposed case for us downstream) in comparison 
to using the unstable options in a nightly compiler (what upstream does)?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to chromium-browser in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2049493

Title:
  Newer rustc version needed in jammy to build chromium updates

Status in chromium-browser package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in rustc package in Ubuntu:
  New

Bug description:
  The next chromium version is making rustc mandatory to build. Chromium
  is a snap built from core22 so using the jammy packages, the build is
  currently failing because it needs libprofiler_builtins.rlib which
  isn't available.

  Upstream provides toolchain builds that can be used but only for amd64 so 
currently the snap is failing to build on arm
  https://launchpad.net/~chromium-team/+snap/chromium-snap-from-source-beta

  The version upstream is using is 1.75 but it's possible that a lower
  version would be enough for now if libprofiler was enabled

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/2049493/+subscriptions


-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to     : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to