Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:

> Hi Nikolai,
>
> I think the incremental (first) version is the best one since you can see
> which bugs are worked around by us and which are fixed per release at a glance.
>
> But really it doesn't matter much which.
>
>> Second solution looks too verbose for me, but with first solution on
>> long chain of versions it will be very hard to manage which changes we
>> have in newest package.
>
> I hope we won't have a long chain of cumulative Rust versions in Guix.  I know
> that Rust upstream likes to do this chain of Rust1 -> Rust2 -> Rust3 -> Rust4
> but that's not really scalable - especially since even one Rust takes a day
> to compile.  We should try to get mrust [1] to work and use it to compile just
> the newest Rust.  If it doesn't work we can still fall back to one of the
> other ways later.
>
> (What Mozilla recommends is we compile Rust1, use Rust2 to compile Rust3, use
> Rust3 to compile Rust4, likewise for each new release)

I think we should heed upstreams advice in that case.  A long bootstrap
chain is really only a problem during 'core-updates', no?

IIUC mrustc only targets x86_64 currently, so I don't expect it to
become viable for Guix in a good while.

> [1] https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc