On 6/20/24 1:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
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.
Yes, that's perfect, actually.
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
Right, we get this for free by just letting scripts/rust_is_available.sh
report its results "out loud".
I'll post a v2, and with the comment part split into a separate patch as
requested.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
