[bug#51845] [CORE-UPDATES] librsvg and rust

[bug#51845] [CORE-UPDATES] librsvg and rust

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> For the record, this is a followup to Efraim’s proposal in
> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/51845>.
>
> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
>
>> Option 1:
>> Track down the ~220 crates which form the dependency graph (of crates)
>> for librsvg and pin them until the next core-updates cycle. Continue
>> like with other packages and add newer versions (like cmake or meson) as
>> packages need them.¹
>
> The advantage of this approach is that we could do it incrementally: we
> could merge ‘core-updates-frozen’ today and just add pinned variants of
> these 200+ crates as needed as time passes.  The downside is that it’s a
> lot of crates to take care of, and we might still accidentally overlook
> seemingly innocuous crate upgrades that end up causing major rebuilds.
>
>> Option 2:
>> Use the bundled crates and treat it as just part of the librsvg source
>> code.²
>>
>> Option 2b:
>> Use the bundled crates for now to finish with core-updates-frozen and
>> revisit this immediately on core-updates (not frozen).
>
> This option will involved a rebuild on x86_64, but the advantage is that
> we’ll be safe going forward: we won’t accidentally cause world rebuilds
> just because an obscure crate somewhere has been upgraded.
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm currently leaning option 2b, it'll get us past this hurdle for
>> core-updates-frozen and let us make changes to the crates as we work to
>> integrate them more fully into Guix.
>
> Same here; it’s not ideal, but it seems like the most reasonable
> short-term option.
>
> If there are no objections, I’d suggest that you go ahead with this
> plan.

I agree that 2b is the most sensible option in our current situation.

-- 
Ricardo