Bug#1000472: bullseye-pu: package rustc-mozilla/1.51.0+dfsg1-1~deb11u1

[Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org>]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 05:47:45PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 15:20 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > In preparing the rustc 1.51 upload/backport (to support backports of
> > the
> > latest firefox-esr and thunderbird packages) it has been suggested
> > that
> > to avoid some issues associated with providing a significant new
> > version
> > of rustc in the rustc binary package (along with the associated
> > library
> > packages), that I prepare the 1.51 rustc package with a different
> > name.
> > Following the model of what was done for gcc, nasm, and nodejs, I was
> > considering source package rustc-mozilla with a single binary package
> > (also rustc-mozilla) to ensure that rdeps don't end up getting
> > surprised
> > by a new rustc.  Would this be considered acceptable for the bullseye
> > and buster uploads of rustc 1.51?
> > 
> 
> I think that sounds sensible, given that bullseye currently has 1.48
> (and buster 1.41).
> 
> As a matter of interest, why was 1.51 the version chosen? I'm mostly
> curious as that version is not currently in any suite in Debian.
> 
Hi Adam,

I had to make a minor tweak.  The source package will still be
rustc-mozilla.  However, rather than consolidate to a single binary
package (which proved to be infeasible for several reasons), I went
ahead with simply renaming all the binary packages as either
rust-mozilla-*, or rustc-mozilla-*, or librust-mozilla-*, and so on.

I am assuming that this is also acceptable, but if it is not, please let
me know.

The choice of 1.51 was requested by Adrian Bunk, as rustc 1.51 is the
(minimum?) version required by FireFox and ThunderBird 91.

I will also file a separate bug for the buster-pu companion package.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez