Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
2014-02-12 2:04 GMT+01:00 Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com wrote: On 02/11/2014 01:01 AM, Tom Lee wrote: Hey Brian, Not sure I understand the last paragraph of your email (do you or do you not want to encourage distro-specific installation? :)) I'm still not sure. I want people to be able to install Rust easily and I want those sources to be reliable. I don't think Rust should endorse third party binary builds, but official distribution packages aren't third party as the distribution is already trusted by the user. There's some value in not being opinionated when it comes to supporting distros. I think Rust should have 1 official distribution package (binaries) and let distros' package maintainers take care of the rest. Distro users will most likely prefer and tust their own package manager / maintainer. what is important, though, is that Rust doesn't block distros on building their packages. This has been raised in this thread already, though. Cheers, Fla. -- Flavio (@flaper87) Percoco http://www.flaper87.com http://github.com/FlaPer87 ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
there is a plan for llvm before 1.0. What does this refer to? Last I checked we were certain to still be using a custom LLVM as of 1.0. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Luca BRUNO lu...@debian.org wrote: Tom Lee rust-...@tomlee.co wrote: I've cced Luca Bruno in since I think he's been keeping a closer eye on the details. Thanks for copying, I was already lurking the thread. For the sake of completeness, I've been in talk with several Mozillers and Debian guys in the last few days to try to sort out all the details, hopefully in time for 0.10. I'm currently waiting for some final quotable feedback, I'll try to post all the details after that. 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. Helping us work through some of the thornier issues would be a huge help. In fact, rust devs have been very collaborative and most of the issues are mostly fixed or being addressed. rpath should be ok, libuv has been upstreamed and there is a plan for llvm before 1.0. Bootstrapping will stay as is and hopefully be accepted (with some workaround processes) also in Debian. I can't speak for Fedora/RH, but looks like things are consistently improving on this front. And many third-party repositories already exists for those who prefer the bleeding-edge :) Cheers, Luca -- .''`. | ~[ Luca BRUNO ~ (kaeso) ]~ : :' : | Email: lucab (AT) debian.org ~ Debian Developer `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 0x3BFB9FB3 ~ Free Software supporter `-| HAM-radio callsign: IZ1WGT ~ Networking sorcerer ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
On 12/02/2014 23:27, Benjamin Striegel wrote: there is a plan for llvm before 1.0. What does this refer to? Last I checked we were certain to still be using a custom LLVM as of 1.0. Apparently using upstream LLVM is desired, but not a blocker for 1.0: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/4259#issuecomment-34094922 https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Meeting-weekly-2014-02-04#wiki-llvm -- Simon Sapin ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
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.comwrote: 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
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
Tom Lee rust-...@tomlee.co wrote: I've cced Luca Bruno in since I think he's been keeping a closer eye on the details. Thanks for copying, I was already lurking the thread. For the sake of completeness, I've been in talk with several Mozillers and Debian guys in the last few days to try to sort out all the details, hopefully in time for 0.10. I'm currently waiting for some final quotable feedback, I'll try to post all the details after that. 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. Helping us work through some of the thornier issues would be a huge help. In fact, rust devs have been very collaborative and most of the issues are mostly fixed or being addressed. rpath should be ok, libuv has been upstreamed and there is a plan for llvm before 1.0. Bootstrapping will stay as is and hopefully be accepted (with some workaround processes) also in Debian. I can't speak for Fedora/RH, but looks like things are consistently improving on this front. And many third-party repositories already exists for those who prefer the bleeding-edge :) Cheers, Luca -- .''`. | ~[ Luca BRUNO ~ (kaeso) ]~ : :' : | Email: lucab (AT) debian.org ~ Debian Developer `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 0x3BFB9FB3 ~ Free Software supporter `-| HAM-radio callsign: IZ1WGT ~ Networking sorcerer signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
On 02/11/2014 01:01 AM, Tom Lee wrote: Hey Brian, Not sure I understand the last paragraph of your email (do you or do you not want to encourage distro-specific installation? :)) I'm still not sure. I want people to be able to install Rust easily and I want those sources to be reliable. ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com wrote: On 02/11/2014 01:01 AM, Tom Lee wrote: Hey Brian, Not sure I understand the last paragraph of your email (do you or do you not want to encourage distro-specific installation? :)) I'm still not sure. I want people to be able to install Rust easily and I want those sources to be reliable. I don't think Rust should endorse third party binary builds, but official distribution packages aren't third party as the distribution is already trusted by the user. ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Simon Sapin simon.sa...@exyr.org wrote: On 07/02/2014 00:35, Brian Anderson wrote: We can also attempt to package Rust with various of the most common package managers: homebrew, macports, dpkg, rpm. In my experience with WeasyPrint, this only works if the person maintaining one of these packages uses it personally. (Scratch your own itch.) This probably excludes most contributors, as they will have a git clone built from source to work with. Alternatively, this may be viable if these packages can be *entirely* automated as part of the normal build/release system, so that they don’t really need maintainance. But I don’t know if that’s possible. I certainly use my nightly Arch package even though I usually have a build or two of local branches around. It's very convenient to always have a working install of master that's less than a day old. It's built automatically and in theory doesn't require any attention. Rust's Makefile does love to break though... ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] What form should the official Rust binary installers for Unixes take?
You ll need to create many binary packages : Ubuntu (10.04, 10.10, 11.04, 11.10, 12.04, 12.10, 13.04, 13.10), debian, homebrew, Windows,... There is a huge among of work. Le 9 févr. 2014 16:40, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com a écrit : On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Simon Sapin simon.sa...@exyr.org wrote: On 07/02/2014 00:35, Brian Anderson wrote: We can also attempt to package Rust with various of the most common package managers: homebrew, macports, dpkg, rpm. In my experience with WeasyPrint, this only works if the person maintaining one of these packages uses it personally. (Scratch your own itch.) This probably excludes most contributors, as they will have a git clone built from source to work with. Alternatively, this may be viable if these packages can be *entirely* automated as part of the normal build/release system, so that they don't really need maintainance. But I don't know if that's possible. I certainly use my nightly Arch package even though I usually have a build or two of local branches around. It's very convenient to always have a working install of master that's less than a day old. It's built automatically and in theory doesn't require any attention. Rust's Makefile does love to break though... ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
