Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:06:18 PM UTC, Petr Cerny wrote: > i.stakenvic...@gmail.com wrote: > > Technically speaking, as i've been told at least, rust can still be > > built from scratch if ocaml is available on the platform, starting > > with rust-0.6, to 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0 and then

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:21:12 AM UTC-7, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 3/24/16 10:13 AM, atu...@mozilla.com wrote: > > The Rust core team met yesterday and developed a complete plan for Rust to > > be build with the previous stable compiler as snapshot. We will be landing > > the

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 3/24/16 10:13 AM, atu...@mozilla.com wrote: The Rust core team met yesterday and developed a complete plan for Rust to be build with the previous stable compiler as snapshot. We will be landing the infrastructure needed to do this shortly. In terms of release timing, it will take some time

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:25:35 PM UTC-7, atu...@mozilla.com wrote: > The Rust compiler has had over 300 snapshots, so re-bootstrapping from ocaml > would take at least 900 compiles (each one requires three stages of internal > builds); by my estimation, this would take at least a month of

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Hi! We are holding off on packaging with nix for a couple quarters because of how much work in the TC-worker we have ahead of us. Let's have a nix conversation the first week of the quarter and then we can see what low hanging fruit there is. Right now, lots of people are stressed with gsoc and

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Henri Sivonen wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Petr Cerny wrote: Saying "Linux is good, we can actually do things there, that are more complicated elsewhere, but you are hindering our development" sound a bit unfair. There is no contradiction between Rust working the

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Petr Cerny wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > Well... changes can be done, but have to be announced. Which is why this > thread is a Good Thing (TM). That's why I started this thread. > By the way, from the picture referenced above I think that in

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Henri Sivonen wrote: The comments on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175546 suggest that Mozilla deferred relying on GCC bug fixes until after 45 ESR in order for Debian not to have to backport a compiler for oldstable. Is that the case? That is, is Debian's policy already

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:06:18 PM UTC-7, Petr Cerny wrote: > i.stake...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-4, Henri Sivonen > >> If distro policy bans ongoing cross-compliation, I guess the > >> distro would need to replicate the Rust project's compiler > >>

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

i.stakenvic...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-4, Henri Sivonen If distro policy bans ongoing cross-compliation, I guess the distro would need to replicate the Rust project's compiler compilation version lineage on each architecture after bootstrapping with

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:31 AM, wrote: > Given that I know very little about rust, and putting aside the activities of > Rust upstream's releases in general, what do we expect is going to be needed > here in terms of a rust package to build an ESR vs a regular

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-4, band...@mozilla.com wrote: > > This seems like a workable solution, as horrible as it is. One could > similarly make distro packages of rustc specifically for building firefox > (called 'rustc-fx' for example), and put them on the same ESR upgrade

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-4, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: > > Well, what about other arches? ppc(64), s390, ai64...? > > All architectures currently supported by Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu > (but not Gentoo!) already have LLVM

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Henri Sivonen wrote: > Sure, once you are on similar level of stability to GCC, it is not such > a big problem. Note that GCC 5.3.0 (to my best knowledge) can be > compiled by GCC-3.4 (10 years difference). Once rustc is capable of > being compiled by a one or two years older version of

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Mar 21, 2016 7:21 PM, "Petr Cerny" wrote: > > Sure, once you are on similar level of stability to GCC, it is not such > a big problem. Note that GCC 5.3.0 (to my best knowledge) can be > compiled by GCC-3.4 (10 years difference). Once rustc is capable of > being compiled by a

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:49 PM, wrote: > I'm surprised to hear that *10.4* is still expected to work. The oldest > version I've heard Rust needed to support is 10.6. 10.6 on Intel is the oldest supported by Mozilla. Cameron maintains a port to 10.4 on PPC:

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

bander...@mozilla.com wrote: >> Actually, this would be pretty much what GCC does: it bootstraps >> itself in three phases, with just one `make` command. And although >> the scale is much longer, compiling for example GCC-5.3.0 with GCC > > This is also what rustc does - it bootstraps off of

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Petr Cerny wrote: > Chris Peterson wrote: > > On 3/20/16 3:04 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:27 PM, wrote: > >>> > On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> (rustc

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:05:25 AM UTC-7, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> You say you don't see #5 happening. Do you see #4 happening? If not, > >> what do

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 9:18:21 PM UTC-7, Cameron Kaiser wrote: > On 3/19/16 5:27 AM, cosinusoida...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Martin Stransky > >> wrote: > >>> Is it

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Chris Peterson wrote: > On 3/20/16 3:04 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:27 PM, wrote: >>> > On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> (rustc originally bootstrapped with OCaml, but >> building the whole history of

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Petr Cerny wrote: > I can't speak for Debian, but on SLE the solution we went for last time was > packaging new-enough GCC for older supported code streams, very much like > other packages (e.g. GTK) we had already needed way before. This seems

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 3/20/16 3:04 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:27 PM, wrote: > On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> (rustc originally bootstrapped with OCaml, but >> building the whole history of Rust from the OCaml days to present

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:11:40 PM UTC+1, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: > On 03/17/2016 10:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > My concern is that Linux distributions tend to have a policy that > > binary packages have to be buildable from source packages using the > > tools that are available in

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:11:40 PM UTC+1, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: > On 03/17/2016 10:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > My concern is that Linux distributions tend to have a policy that > > binary packages have to be buildable from source packages using the > > tools that are available in

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Hello, my first post, so let me introduce myself briefly: I've been with SUSE Linux as Mozilla (currently Firefox+NSPR/NSS) maintainer for SLE (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop) for some five years. Henri Sivonen wrote: But as a matter of fact, Debian's old stable is not receiving

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Henri Sivonen wrote: > An example of this *not* being the case: I expect to have to import > https://github.com/gz/rust-cpuid into Gecko in order to cater to the > Mozilla-side policy sadness of having to support Windows XP users > whose computers don't have SSE2. With my

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> You say you don't see #5 happening. Do you see #4 happening? If not, >> what do you see happening? > > At this point, I'm wondering if the best outcome

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: > Is it possible to build Rust from sources before Firefox build executes? rustc is written in Rust, so if you only have source code and the compilers that are currently available in Fedora, you can't build rustc. At

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 3/19/16 5:27 AM, cosinusoida...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: Is it possible to build Rust from sources before Firefox build executes? rustc is written in Rust,

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 01:45:49AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > You say you don't see #5 happening. Do you see #4 happening? If not, > > what do you see happening? > > At this point, I'm wondering if the best outcome wouldn't be 6)

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

> "Henri" == Henri Sivonen writes: Henri> Ubuntu and Fedora don't have any version of rustc anywhere at Henri> all. For Fedora it's in COPR, but of course that's not official, just something to play with. You can follow the Fedora Rust packaging process here:

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:53:58 AM UTC-7, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le 17/03/2016 à 21:30, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > >> In Debian & Ubuntu, > > I didn't find a rustc package on http://packages.ubuntu.com/ . What's

Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Do we have a plan being executed to make sure that when Gecko components written in Rust ship on the release channel in Mozilla-produced builds the also ship in the Firefox packages of various Linux distributions? If not, we really need to put such a plan in place, since it would be bad to have a

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > In Debian & Ubuntu, I didn't find a rustc package on http://packages.ubuntu.com/ . What's the situation on Ubuntu? > we use the official binaries provided to be able to build rust. My same logic, can Mozilla-built

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Le 17/03/2016 à 14:01, Martin Stransky a écrit : > On 03/17/2016 01:47 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > [...] > >> One way which would make the life of Linux distro way easier would be >> to maintain the Firefox rust code in a way it could compile using older rust >> compiler. >> >> For example,

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Le 17/03/2016 à 11:59, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > Do we have a plan being executed to make sure that when Gecko > components written in Rust ship on the release channel in > Mozilla-produced builds the also ship in the Firefox packages of > various Linux distributions? [...] > > Can we get Debian

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:59:29PM -0700, bander...@mozilla.com wrote: > Hi, > > This is a matter that concerns the Rust team a lot. From the Rust side > we want to make it possible for Debian and Fedora (as a proxy for all > distros) to be able to bootstrap off of their own rustc's and keep up >

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Le 17/03/2016 à 21:30, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> In Debian & Ubuntu, > I didn't find a rustc package on http://packages.ubuntu.com/ . What's > the situation on Ubuntu? I thought it was already synced for xenial. I just

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Le 17/03/2016 à 13:22, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: >> Is it possible to build Rust from sources before Firefox build executes? > rustc is written in Rust, so if you only have source code and the > compilers that are

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Thursday, 17 March 2016 12:23:32 UTC, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: > > Is it possible to build Rust from sources before Firefox build executes? > > rustc is written in Rust, so if you only have source code and the >

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM, wrote: > For Firefox this would require a lot of discipline. For Rust it would be a > massive challenge coming up with a maintainable scheme. Frankly, I think the probability that either the Gecko or Rust teams would commit significant

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: > This is not better from the point of view of distributions policy. > > This is better because you remove a lot of unknown variables from the > equation, and rely on a real package manager to package and

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 03/17/2016 10:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: My concern is that Linux distributions tend to have a policy that binary packages have to be buildable from source packages using the tools that are available in the package repository of the distro. Considering the current state of rustc availability

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

> I've been assuming that Firefox would use the Rust "stable" channel > compiler on the Firefox "release" channel, but I don't know if that > has ever been really *decided* anywhere. Has it been decided? Your assumption is correct. For gecko integration related work we use the stable version of

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

Hi, This is a matter that concerns the Rust team a lot. From the Rust side we want to make it possible for Debian and Fedora (as a proxy for all distros) to be able to bootstrap off of their own rustc's and keep up with the Rust release process. We have a [good idea][1] about how to accomplish

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 03/17/2016 08:30 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: I guess one of the thing we could do is use an alternative solution, such as an external package manager which can work side-by-side with the host, such as

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On 03/17/2016 11:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: Do we have a plan being executed to make sure that when Gecko components written in Rust ship on the release channel in Mozilla-produced builds the also ship in the Firefox packages of various Linux distributions? If not, we really need to put such a

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > You say you don't see #5 happening. Do you see #4 happening? If not, > what do you see happening? At this point, I'm wondering if the best outcome wouldn't be 6) Distros die. I'm almost not joking. > > LTS distros do update Firefox

Re: Linux distro readiness for Rust in Gecko

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:59 AM, wrote: > > In particular, as > > noted in this thread, you can't bootstrap off of either the current > > version of Rust or the previous. This is actually a problem that could > > be fixed in about one release cycle. > > Nice! I didn't