Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] rust: fix CI + allow older versions of rustc and bindgen

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 10:01:26AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> I think this is the wrong direction (ie, backwards).
> 
> Sacrificing current code to be compatible with old stuff feels wrong.
> Especially for really old, like rustc in debian bookworm.
> 
> bookworm has rustc-web (and a few related packages) which is regular
> rustc version 1.78, just renamed.  It is regular bookworm, not backports.
> It has some packages disabled (compared to regular rust) and is a hack,
> but it exists and can be used for now (dunno if it is sufficient for
> qemu though).
> 
> Also debian has backports mechanism, which also can be used for qemu -
> I can try back-porting regular rust (and llvm) to bookworm.
> 
> I think this is a better way (at least a way forward) than trying to
> move backwards.
> 
> But generally, what is the reason to support debian stable?  I understand
> the CI thing, - we need a way to test stuff.  For this, I'd say a better
> alternative would be to target debian testing (currently trixie), not
> debian stable.

The stable distros are what our community of contributors are usually
using, as few people want non-released bleeding edge distros as their
primary development platform.

Custom installing latest upstream pieces is not a user friendly position
to take. Occassionally it is unavoidable, but it is something to be
avoided wherever practical.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|