[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Uncoordinated upload of the rustified librsvg

On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 13:15 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Hi,
> 2018-11-04 01:13 Ben Hutchings:
> > On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 23:46 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > A regression of this scale shouldn't be done lightly.  So what about
> > > reverting it now so things don't degrade, then having a flamewar what to do?
> > 
> > We already know what to do, which is to prioritise our upcoming release
> > and the architectures that will be included in it.  We do not allow
> > Debian ports to hold back changes in unstable.
> I think that this is a reasonable assumption in general if the breakage
> is small, but I am not sure if this is the case when in one single blow
> a few architectures are completely removed from the table (and new
> architectures too, until they get a LLVM and Rust port, along with all
> other necessary support in other tools).
> For example RISC-V / riscv64 will probably not have LLVM ready at least
> until the LLVM stable released next March.

There are enough languages whose implementation depends on LLVM that I
think it has to be considered an essential part of a new Debian port. 
I doubt this is a surprise to the RISC-V porters.

Rust was already a build-dependency for our standard desktop
installation, since Firefox uses it.

> Maybe in this case there are other solutions, like keeping librsvg-rust
> and librsvg-c for different architectures.

I do like the proposal of adding a librsvg-c for just the architectures
that don't have Rust (yet).


Ben Hutchings
friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: