From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Le Bihan Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 21:33:58 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [Patch v7 04/10] rust-bootstrap: new package In-Reply-To: <170ae612-1cc1-434c-bafb-6cfab9e65d8b@mind.be> References: <20170723081206.7774-1-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <20170723081206.7774-5-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <170ae612-1cc1-434c-bafb-6cfab9e65d8b@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170907193358.GC6001@ned> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi! On 17-08-11 01:13:38, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > On 23-07-17 10:12, Eric Le Bihan wrote: > > This new package fetches a binary snapshot of the Rust compiler, > > suitable to bootstrap the host variant of the Rust compiler. > > > > To bootstrap rustc version N, rustc N-1 is used. > > Is it really needed/useful to use N-1 to bootstrap with? From the user's > perspective, that's just another useless download, right? AFAIK, rust N should be able to compile N, so it seems logical to get rid of rust-bootstrap and use rustc-bin (with rust-std-bin) instead. I'll make some tests, though. So, should host-rustc-bin provide $(BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_RUSTC_BIN_AS_BOOTSTRAP), which should disable traditional installation if set? > In fact, this way rust-bootstrap can be eliminated entirely: host-rust-bin can > be used instead. It does complicate things a little bit, because in that case we > should NOT depend on (target) rust-std-bin. So that means that host-rust-bin > shouldn't depend on rust-std-bin, so that dependency should be added in some > different way... It is true that, in that case, we only need the standard library for host from host-rust-std-bin. If it installs target and host versions of the library, we have a useless download. -- ELB