-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 225
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
switch to rustup instead of multirust #14
Comments
As far as I can tell, the deprecation warning for multirust was added only five days ago, in this commit. Was there another warning somewhere else? That being said, moving to rustup is probably a good idea. |
I thought that I have read about the deprecation about half a year ago for the first time, but I just skimmed through the logs as well and concluded for my self, that my memory is tricking me. But since I did not worked with rust for a long time, I did a |
Oh, I didn't know multirust self-destructed. I will work on rustup support as soon as I can. |
And I can't tell if it was related to the deprecation or just something on my system or even doing something wrong when updating, all I can tell is that now there seems to be no way back. PS: Why even check for multirust/rustup or any version manager instead of simply checking for the version of |
That is a very good question. The mix compiler actually runs Making the compile task call rustc instead of multirust/rustup would enable users to choose their own rustc version management strategy. However doing that would mean less rigid sanity checks, and less helpful error messages. I am still undecided on what to do. Do you have any more thoughs on this? |
Rely on rustup/multirust per default, but make it overridable. So the default user will be guided, but when someone overrides rustlers sanity checks, then he is probably knowing what he is doing hand has to debug by himself when something breaks away. But how exactly this overide should work, or which commands it should run I'm not quite sure, probably the same as the checked version does, but without prefixing |
Good call, making a sensible default, and making it overridable for users who know what they are doing is probably a good way of doing it. |
Has there been any progress on this? |
There has, I basically have it working locally. Actually pushing it is blocked by an issue with rustup.rs, rust-lang/rustup#497. If I where to push it before that gets fixed in a release, it would complicate testing for projects using the rustler compiler. It seems like the issue may have been fixed in the git repo already, but I am unsure when the next release will be. |
Can you push to a wipe branch until then? Perhaps I can start playing Hans Elias J. [email protected] schrieb am Sa., 18. Juni 2016
|
Pushed it to the rustup branch. |
A new version of rustup has been released, the problem blocking this seems to be fixed now. Will update and release a new version as soon as possible. |
The newest versions now use rustup. |
The required version of rustc is only a week old, but still you are trying to use a version manager that is deprecated in favor of rustup for about half a year
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: