Hey Brian, Not sure I understand the last paragraph of your email (do you or do you not want to encourage distro-specific installation? :)), but my two cents:
I do some packaging work for the Debian project & expressed some interest in helping out with the Rust packaging for Debian. Last I heard, there were a couple of blockers there preventing us from including Rust as a first-class citizen (and some of those issues also impacted the packaging for Fedora). These were non-trivial at the time, but perhaps that's changed. I've cced Luca Bruno in since I think he's been keeping a closer eye on the details. Relevant link on the wiki: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Note-packaging At a glance, most of those tickets still seem to be open. Pushing to address these issues in Rust and upstream would go a long way to getting first-class support for Rust in Debian and Fedora -- and in turn Ubuntu, RHEL, et al. Helping us work through some of the thornier issues would be a huge help. I'm sure you'd see a lot of support from the community wrt making this happen, but frankly many of the issues involved seem to be the sort of thing where we need some guidance from members on the core team and/or a strong push upstream to projects like libuv and llvm. In the absence of a first-class package for Debian, I'd personally prefer a sane build from source before a custom installer on Linux (something that Rust does a pretty good job of as of the time of writing this). Cheers, Tom On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Brian Anderson <bander...@mozilla.com>wrote: > Thanks for the replies, everyone. Here are my current takeaways: > > * Don't create Linux distro-specific packages, let the various communities > deal with it > * Don't create a networked installer > > So here's what I'm thinking we do now. These are the install methods we > would be promoting on the home page: > > * Mac: .pkg file > * Linux: standalone, cross-distro installer > * Windows: use the installer we've already got > > I'm worried that, if we keep out of the packaging business, but those > packages end up being peoples' preferred way to get Rust, then the web page > would be advocating the worst ways to get Rust. It seems like we'll need to > put a link to 'alternate installation methods' on the homepage to link > people to homebrew, macports, ubuntu, arch, etc. packages, emphasizing that > they are unsupported. > > > > > On 02/06/2014 04:35 PM, Brian Anderson wrote: > >> Hey. >> >> One of my goals for 0.10 is to make the Rust installation and upgrade >> experience better. My personal ambitions are to make Rust installable with >> a single shell command, distribute binaries, not source, and to have both >> nightlies and point releases. >> >> Since we're already able to create highly-compatible snapshot compilers, >> it should be relatively easy to extend our snapshot procedure to produce >> complete binaries, installable via a cross-platform shell script. This >> would require the least amount of effort and maintenance because we don't >> need to use any specific package managers or add new bots, and a single >> installer can work on all Linuxes. >> >> We can also attempt to package Rust with various of the most common >> package managers: homebrew, macports, dpkg, rpm. There community-maintained >> packages for some of these already, so we don't necessarily need to >> redevelop from scratch if we just want to adopt one or all of them as >> official packages. We could also create a GUI installer for OS X, but I'm >> not sure how important that is. >> >> What shall we do? >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > -- *Tom Lee */ http://tomlee.co / @tglee <http://twitter.com/tglee>
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
