Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

APT Rust requirement raises questions

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 508 posts

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#401

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

ForHackernews wrote: post #220
tyfon wrote: post #204

I have a dual pentium pro 200 that runs gentoo and openbsd, but rust doesn't ship i586 binaries, only i686+. So I would need to compile on a separate computer to use any software that is using rust. There is already an initrd package tool I can't use since it is rust based, but I don't use initrd on that machine so it is not a problem so far. The computer runs modern linux just fine, I just wish the rust team would a…

I mean... Pentium Pro is 30 years old at this point. I don't think it's unreasonable that modern software isn't targeting those machines.

So anyways, here's the netbsd docs for running the latest release on VAX: https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/vax/

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#402

Post by krior »

rrmm wrote: post #153
honeycrispy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it pointless comes across as jaded. It's not pointless. Supporting Rust attracts contributors, and those contributors are much less likely to introduce vulnerabilities in Rust when contributing vs alternatives.

to introduce certain common vulnerabilities ... not vulnerabilities in general.

And seatbelts and airbags do not prevent all harm, yet they are still universally used.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#403

Post by cogman10 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #399
cogman10 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last 32bit laptop CPU was produced nearly 20 years ago. Further, there are still several LTS linux distros (including the likes of Ubuntu and Debian) which don't have the rust requirement and won't until the next LTS. 24.04 is supported until 2029. Meaning you are talking about a 25 year old CPU at that point. And even if you continue to need support. Debian based distros aren't the only ones on the plant. You ca…

> The last 32bit laptop CPU was produced nearly 20 years ago. 15 years max; I can easily find documentation of Intel shipping Atom chips without 64-bit support in 2010, though I haven't found a good citation for when exactly that ended.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/bonnel...

Looks like it was ultimately phased out in 2011.

It was only the first atom uarch that was 32. The next uarch (Saltwell) was 64.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#404

Post by bakugo »

simonask wrote: post #27
bakugo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. It's just a roundabout way of saying "anything that isn't running Rust isn't a REAL computer". Which is pretty clearly an arrogant statement, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.

Be real for a second. People are arguing against Rust because it supports fewer target architectures than GCC. Which of the target architectures do you believe if important enough that it should decide the future development of apt?

I won't be real for a second, because this isn't about that.

Arguing that support for certain architectures should be removed because they see very little real world use is totally valid. But it's possible to do so in a respectful way, without displaying such utter contept for anyone who might disagree.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#405

Post by yoyohello13 »

OptionX wrote: post #394
yoyohello13 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As evidenced by this very comment chain. I've seen, by far, way more comment from people annoyed by vegans. I can't even remember the last time I've heard a vegan discuss it outside of just stating the food preference when we got out to eat.

If I don't see it it doesn't happen is the definition of anedoctal.

Why is your anecdote more valid than mine?

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#406

Post by crote »

MisterTea wrote: post #212

""and not be held back by trying to shoehorn modern software on retro computing devices"" Nice. So discrimination of poor users who are running "retro" machines because that is the best they can afford or acquire. I knew of at least two devs who are stuck with older 32 bit machines as that is what they can afford/obtain. I even offered to ship them a spare laptop with a newer CPU and they said thanks but import dutie…

We're basically at a point where running those older machines is more expensive, once you factor in power use.

Even then, people using ancient fifth-hand machines are almost certainly still going to run x86 - which means they'll have no trouble running Rust as 32-bit x86 is a supported target. Their bigger issue is going to be plain old C apps dropping 32-bit support!

"Retro" in this case genuinely means "horribly outdated". We're talking about systems with CPUs in the hundreds of MHz with probably fewer than a gigabyte in memory. You might do some basic word processing using Windows 95, but running anything even remotely resembling a modern OS is completely impossible. And considering their age and rarity, I'd be very impressed if anyone in a poor country managed to get their hands on it.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#407

Post by oconnor663 »

razighter777 wrote: post #172
geerlingguy wrote: post #5

I remembered reading about this news back when that first message was posted on the mailing list, and didn't think much of it then (rust has been worming its way into a lot of places over the past few years, just one more thing I tack on for some automation)... But seeing the maintainer works for Canonical, it seems like the tail (Ubuntu) keeps trying to wag the dog (Debian ecosystem) without much regard for the wide…

Agreed. I think that announcement was unprofessional. This was a unilateral decision affecting other's hard work, and the author didn't provide them the opportunity to provide feedback on the change. It disregards the importance of ports. Even if an architecture isn't widely used, supporting multiple architectures can help reveal bugs in the original implementation that wouldn't otherwise be obvious. This is breaking…

> to rewrite some feature for a tiny security benefit

For what it's worth, the zero->one introduction of a new language into a big codebase always comes with a lot of build changes, downstream impact, debate, etc. It's good for that first feature to be some relatively trivial thing, so that it doesn't make the changes any bigger than they have to be, and so that it can be delayed or reverted as needed without causing extra trouble. Once everything lands, then you can add whatever bigger features you like without disrupting things.

No comment on the rest of the thread...

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#408

Post by [deleted] »

steveklabnik wrote: post #386
xscott wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For this specific issue, if square brackets were used for generics, then something else would have to change for array indexing The compiler knows when the `A` in `A[B]` is a type vs a variable.

A compiler could disambiguate, but the goal is to have parsing happen without knowing if A is a type or a variable. That is the inappropriate intertwining of parsing and semantics that languages are interested in getting away from, not continuing with. Anyway, just to be clear: not liking the turbofish is fine, it's a subjective preference. But it's not an objective win, that's all I'm saying. And it's only one small…

[deleted]

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#409

Post by GoblinSlayer »

kstrauser wrote: post #332
xscott wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only `b` has the equivalent of "superfluous parens". It's practically your job to defend Rust, so I don't expect you to budge even one inch. However, I hate the idea of letting you mislead the casual reader that this is somehow equivalent and "just how languages work". The grammar could've used `Generic[Specific]` with square brackets and avoided the need for the turbo fish.

> The grammar could've used `Generic[Specific]` with square brackets and avoided the need for the turbo fish. But then people would grouse about it using left-bracket and right-bracket as brackets in a type "context".

The problem here is that angle brackets are semantics dependent syntax. Whether they are brackets or not depends on semantic context. Conversely square brackets are always brackets.

Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions

#410

Post by metaltyphoon »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #328
JuniperMesos wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer Rust syntax to Python's purely on the grounds that Rust is a curly-brace language and Python is an indentation-sensitive language. I like it when the start and end of scopes in code are overtly marked with a non-whitespace character, it reduces the chances of bugs caused by getting confused about what lines of code are in what scope and makes it easier to use text editor tools to move around between scopes.…

The rust syntax problem is not the braces but about all the #[()] || :: > ‘stuff.

Attribute, lambda and turbofish?
Post reply on HN