Answering myself
On 5/1/26 09:21, Hugo Buddelmeijer wrote:
On 5/1/26 08:50, Andreas Enge wrote:
There is rust-bootstrap-1.54; and there is rust-bootstrap-1.74, used on
x86_64 for bootstrapping, so there a problem in an earlier version does
not matter.
Thanks, clear. But one confusion leads to another
;;; The rust-bootstrap packages are special in that they are built
with mrustc,
;;; which shortens the bootstrap path.
The logical thing to do, at least to me, would be to have a rust-
bootstrap-* for every version of rust, so we don't have any long chain
of rust-building-rust at all.
Just rust-bootstrap-1.xx and then rust-1.xx.
Oh that is not how it works. From
https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc
> Currently tested to fully bootstrap (with a binary-equal 1.91.1)
version 1.90.0
> Slso supports and might still bootstrap (assuming the right
environment) - rustc 1.19.0, 1.29.0, 1.39.0, 1.54.0, 1.74.0
Apparently we can only bootstrap 1.54.0, 1.74.0 and 1.91.[01].
Still wondering why we need so many rust versions, since I thought one
of the ideas behind rust was backwards (and forwards?) compatibility.
That you could take a years old rust program and compile it with a newer
compiler due to the editions system.
So naively I would say we ditch every rust version before 1.91.1. But
that is beyond this Python discussion.
