On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:38 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would having similar targets for bindgen help? What about having this > install rust-src? Updating / installing those required a lot more > looking up of documentation (and then adding --force), so it'd be nice > if there were some way to do a similar override or make target. Which docs did you need to check? i.e. we have the commands for those steps in the Quick Start guide. I think you may be referring to the case when switching between LTS and mainline, due to the `bindgen-cli` vs. `bindgen` name change that the tool did (since that is where `--force` is required, not for normal upgrading or downgrading). That is definitely a bit painful :-( At least `cargo` mentions the need for `--force` in that case. Or are you referring to something else? I considered having a `rustupsetup` target (or script) instead that does everything (with a `BUILDONLY=1` option or similar, given some dependencies are not strictly needed for building), since having all this "switching logic" is useful, but then: - I am not sure we should "hide" the details of the setup too much: I thought `rustupoverride` would be OK-ish because the output directory is needed (so it is justified) and the command is straightforward, but the others do not "need" that information. - If we include `bindgen` there, it wouldn't be `rustup`-only anymore, so perhaps we would need another name like `rustsetup`. But that may mislead others (e.g. those looking at the Make help), because it is just one way of setting things up and it is not required. Perhaps this can be alleviated by not including it in the `make help`, so that everybody comes from the Quick Start guide and thus hopefully they have read the document at least diagonally :) - Given there are different ways to set different sub-steps, and the fact that we don't have such a script for C does not have (please correct me if I am wrong -- I am aware of Thorsten's recent guide, which covers `apt` etc., but that is a Quick Start-like approach rather than automated script), I am not sure it would be welcome as a Make target (but perhaps it would be fine as a script?). Masahiro may have some guidelines here. - In the future we may have to change how the setup works or add steps, i.e. it is not 100% settled. Thus I am concerned about adding complex Make targets that users may start to depend on (i.e. with particular/complex semantics), vs. just having docs that are manual. For `rustupoverride`, it thought it could be OK-ish because it is just a single command and unlikely that it will change (and if we stop using it, we can make it empty with a warning and then remove it eventually; while it gets harder for more complex ones). What do you think? Cheers, Miguel
