On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > What exactly did you have in mind for how that should look? The > > "make rustavailable" target has some leading *** and some bare > > statements, so I'm not quite sure exactly how to lay it out: > > I was thinking something like: > > *** > *** Rust is not available. > *** > > (the `***` prefix is used also in other similar scripts and by Make itself). > > However, thinking about it a bit more, we should perhaps just let > `rust_is_available.sh` tell the user why it fails, since it is likely > the next step the user would do anyway: > > $ make LLVM=1 rust-analyzer > *** > *** Rust compiler 'rustc' is too old. > *** Your version: 1.62.0 > *** Minimum version: 1.78.0 > *** > *** > *** Please see Documentation/rust/quick-start.rst for details > *** on how to set up the Rust support. > *** > make[1]: *** [linux/Makefile:1973: rust-analyzer] Error 1 > make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2 > > What do you think? Then there is no need for extra output here and the > patch becomes simpler too. As someone who just ran into the "wait, how do I get rust to build on this machine again?" problem, yes, having the link to the documentation right there would be helpful. I did know where to find it, but others might not, and it's free to add. thanks, greg k-h
