• LeFantome@programming.dev
      5·
      2 days ago

      The timeline is not super abrupt, especially for architectures where all he is asking is to ensure that your Rust toolchain is in order. That is especially true when you consider that Rust is already well maintained on all the Debian architectures that people actually use.

      The abruptness (almost rudeness) is in the second part where he basically says that, if you cannot get Rust going in time, you should just stop releasing Debian for that architecture.

      It is mostly just poorly worded though. Because none of these architectures have “official” support even now. This will not be the only way they are behind. So, there is not reason to be so dramatic.

      And that would be my response to him. Another option here is that these alternative architectures just continue to ship an older version of APT for now. Emergency avoided. Few of them ship with up-to-date versions of APT even now.

      Another solution is to use one of the multiple projects that is working to make Rust code build with the GCC compiler back-end. At least one of these projects has already announced that they want to work with these Debian variants to ensure that APT builds with them.

      So, the 6 month timeline is a reasonable impetus to make that happen which would be quite a good thing beyond just APT.

      There are many other useful tools written in Rust you are going to want to use on these architectures. It will be a fantastic outcome if this pressure from APT kickstarts that happening for some of these long abandoned architectures (by the mainstream at least).

    • undu@discuss.tchncs.de
      522·
      4 days ago

      There’s time until March for the maintainers of the 3 niche architectures to organize and make rust available for them. Doesn’t sound that abrupt to me

    • ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip
      7·
      3 days ago

      For package maintainers, it’s reasonable to expect security updates are rolled out the same week that a vulnerability is found. If you can’t deploy a new version of a package in 6 months, not maintaining the package is also a valid option.

    • whoever loves Digit@piefed.socialEnglish
      189·
      4 days ago

      Rust adds another layer of trusting the compiler isn’t backdoored. All UNIX/Linux systems use the gcc toolchain, so having it written in C would mean less dependencies for the OS.

      Strange times.

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    9·
    3 days ago

    So thats why whenever I try to find a package in apt, I have to iterate through thousands of simiparly named librust-{dictionaryword}-{component}-dev packages in order to find the simple component I want… Apt repos have really been trying too hard for granularity, I’m pretty sure there are more librust áckages than actual end-user program packages.

    • Matriks404@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, it’s pretty good. But now that I’ve started studying, and don’t have time for learning it (I’ve literally made a personal wiki with various documentation for myself), so I am thinking to switching to atomic distro instead (maybe KDE Linux).

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    91·
    3 days ago

    Tells something about apt. Not because Rust bad or anything, but because Rust is more like C++ than C.

    • N.E.P.T.R@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      15·
      3 days ago

      You can think yhat Wayland adoption was artificial, bit X.Org is unmaintained software and no developers are picking up reigns of X11. X is dead.

    • mmmm@sopuli.xyz
      267·
      3 days ago

      Uhm, what?

      Wayland has been in the works for more than a decade. Granted, there’s some people having issues with it, with propietary hardware (nVidia) and not-so-common setups like two monitors, but it happens that they are the most noisy. For the rest of us it’s been great, stable, and feels snappier than X.

      If you want to talk about shoehorning stuff into Debian, talk about systemd.

        • Yoddel_Hickory@piefed.caEnglish
          11·
          3 days ago

          I assume “weird two-monitors setups” that are not so common, not two-monitor setups as a whole, as Wayland works perfectly with two monitors. It even works way better than X11 if your monitors are different, like if only one has VRR or if both monitors need different scaling.

        • AsoFiafia@lemmy.zip
          12·
          3 days ago

          Exactly my thoughts. What does this joker even mean? I regularly use 2-3 monitors, and have used four in certain roles. Almost everyone I know that really uses their machine has, at minimum, two screens.

          • rozodru@pie.andmc.caEnglish
            4·
            3 days ago

            the ONLY thing I can think of is sometimes, at least for me, on wayland it will switch the naming on my second monitor between either DP-1 or HDMI-A-1 randomly for whatever reason. bit of a very minor pain if I’m using a WM where I have to go in and edit the config to switch it but on KDE it’s not an issue. that’s literally the only thing I can think of.

        • Auster@thebrainbin.org
          10·
          3 days ago

          Second that. The person just needs to pull a cable into a cheap second-hand screen he/she bought and it’s pretty much done, so I can’t see why it wouldn’t be common.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          5·
          3 days ago

          Yeah that’s quite silly. Every single employee at my office is issued 2 monitors to go with their company laptop. People working from home get the monitors shipped to them. It’s the standard setup in tons of offices as well as for many home users.

      • Auster@thebrainbin.org
        33·
        3 days ago

        Explaining, changes happening too abruptly feel artificial. Wayland’s been around for a while, sure, but it was barely adopted and then a lot of people started insisting on it overnight.

        • LeFantome@programming.dev
          3·
          3 days ago

          There is this really strange perception amongst Wayland critics that it had low market share and nobody was using it.

          The majority of Linux desktop users are on Wayland and we still have people posting that nobody is using it or even that it “doesn’t work”.

          Wayland switched to the default in places where it was already popular and is becoming required in places where few are switching away from the default.

  • Mwa@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    310·
    3 days ago

    Maybe cause Apt is slow?
    edit: maybe i have a placebo effect or i am miss remembering :P

    • BillyCrystalMeth@slrpnk.net
      7·
      3 days ago

      Apt feels like one of the faster package managers. dnf is slow, yum is snail speed, zypper is slow as fuck too. Apt and Pacman is by far on the faster side

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        32·
        3 days ago

        Dnf5 is absolutely not slow.

        Moreover, apt’s output is God awful. How hard is it to put each package on its own line when doing an upgrade? Its commands are also esoteric (Madison?)?

        It works and I like Debian but apt is very Meh.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      8·
      3 days ago

      Compared to what?

      I know redhat has a new package manager which name I can’t recall now but before it was rpm with yum and holy crap that was molasses slow

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      3·
      3 days ago

      I have strong doubts that rust could significantly speed up a software that’s written in C or C++.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        4·
        3 days ago

        Rust is generally not going to outperform well optimized C code.

        That said, it is far easier to write performant Rust code than C code. So, what we see, is that projects that move to Rust frequently see performance gains.

        That just means the initial C code was not that great (performance wise). From observation, most C projects are fairly unoptimized.