Skip to content
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

Closed
NobbZ opened this issue May 14, 2016 · 13 comments
Closed

switch to rustup instead of multirust #14

NobbZ opened this issue May 14, 2016 · 13 comments

Comments

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor

NobbZ commented May 14, 2016

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

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented May 14, 2016

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.

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NobbZ commented May 14, 2016

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 multirust update today and then it desintegrated by removing multirust executable as well as the proxy-binaries, so I was forced to install rustup, and I did also already fire up another issue related to it (#15).

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented May 14, 2016

Oh, I didn't know multirust self-destructed.

I will work on rustup support as soon as I can.

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NobbZ commented May 14, 2016

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 rustc?

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented May 14, 2016

That is a very good question.

The mix compiler actually runs multirust run directly. When originally writing the mix compiler, I needed to run the build in many different environments, including dev machine, travis, and server. Having the compiler work with multirust directly made this easier in some ways, as it enabled me to have tasks for automatically fetching the correct version, and more helpful error messages for the user when compilation fails.

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?

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NobbZ commented May 14, 2016

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 multirust run?

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented May 14, 2016

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.

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NobbZ commented Jun 18, 2016

Has there been any progress on this?

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented Jun 18, 2016

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.

@NobbZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

NobbZ commented Jun 18, 2016

Can you push to a wipe branch until then? Perhaps I can start playing
around using that branch.

Hans Elias J. [email protected] schrieb am Sa., 18. Juni 2016
16:25:

There has, I basically have it working locally.

Actually pushing it is blocked by an issue with rustup.rs,
rust-lang/rustup#497
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.


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#14 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AADmR1r8eHlqh_0Cgcfpm2tCnxNK59PMks5qM__jgaJpZM4Ierzm
.

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented Jun 18, 2016

Pushed it to the rustup branch.

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented Jun 23, 2016

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.

@hansihe
Copy link
Member

hansihe commented Jul 28, 2016

The newest versions now use rustup.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants