platform-support/netbsd.md: No longer mention 9.x, due to EoL. - #162268
platform-support/netbsd.md: No longer mention 9.x, due to EoL.#162268fraggerfox wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
Some changes occurred in src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support cc @Noratrieb |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust Project has assigned @folkertdev (or someone else) to review your changes, you should hear from them (or someone else) within the next two weeks. Please see the contribution instructions and our LLM policy for more information. Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
| with newer versions). `x86_64-unknown-netbsd` is built for NetBSD | ||
| 10.x to access a newer gcc. | ||
| 11.x to access a newer gcc. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a PR in the works for this? Currently it looks like 10 is still used
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no preference whether or not it's changed, just want our docs to be consistent
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This I will need to verify with @0323pin
Looks like the maintainer has replied, so striking my comment out.
| All use the "native" `stdc++` library which goes along with the natively | ||
| supplied GNU C++ compiler for the given OS version. Most of the bootstraps | ||
| are built for NetBSD 9.x, although some exceptions exist (some are | ||
| are built for NetBSD 10.x, although some exceptions exist (some are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you make the supported version explicit with an "OS version" section, like we have here? https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/apple-darwin.html#os-version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what exactly that is in response to but to clarify, I'm just looking for an explicit "The minimum supported version is ..." sentence rather than inferring what "most of the bootstraps are built for" means.
And/or adding a (x.y+) note to the table on https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support.html like a lot of platforms have
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, let me go through the tooling and get the exact numbers out.
Looks like both the maintainers have replied, so striking my comment out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what exactly that is in response to but to clarify, I'm just looking for an explicit "The minimum supported version is ..." sentence rather than inferring what "most of the bootstraps are built for" means.
That's understandable... However, that is also a moving target, and depends on the rust version, well, really depends on the minimum supported LLVM version and/or the integrated LLVM version. So far (as of this writing, 1.98.1 is released), the new LLVM version (23.x?) which requires an "insanely fresh gcc to build correctly" and which pushes the minimum OS version target upwards has so far not materialized in a full rust release. It's due for the next one? So I hesitate to bump the minimum requirement for the base OS while we still build releases for 9.x (which results in binaries which can be run on both 10.x and 11.x).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The version we use for building can also be decoupled from the version we support. We should be able to bump build dependencies if something blocks it, but produce a rustc and other compiled binaries that work on older targets (like we do for many other platforms).
To be clear: I personally have no problem with whatever minimum version is picked and am not pushing for a bump, 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 makes no difference to me. We just need a clear answer for what we're trying to support so we can make decisions like what to do with rust-lang/libc#5243.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The version we use for building can also be decoupled from the version we support
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that.
In general, a binary built on 9.x can be run on 10.x and 11.x.
A binary built on 10.x on the other hand, all bets are off for being able to run it on 9.x.
Similarly, a binary built on 11.x there is no guarantee it will be possible to run on either of 10.x or 9.x.
There's some additional rules for what goes between 10.0 and subsequent 10.x versions such as 10.1, but that gets into the weeds and is probably not so relevant here.
So stating what version we build binaries for actually already specifies which versions the resultant binaries are usable on. That's also part of the reason that I don't want to prematurely bump the minimum supported OS version, and also why I stick to the oldest supported version in my target trees when doing cross compilation.
And, lastly, since rust requires a binary for the "previous" rust version to bootstrap, bumping the OS version we build for will cut off all lower-major-numbered OS releases from having any chance of getting rust installed, at least for a "native" build (I realized a cross-build could still be done, as long as the target's compiler is new enough, ref. the impending increase in requirement on that front for newer LLVM).
|
r? tgross35 |
|
|
6 participants
Change the pkgsrc-wip link to indicate a more current rust version.
Follow up to #160625
cc: @he32 / @0323pin