Link to Rust 1.60.0: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/04/07/Rust-1.60.0.html
Packages relying on Rust have been updated to support version 1.60.0:
package/rust
package/rust-bin
Newest version of the source archives have been retrieved with their hash values, and the signature of the .asc files have been verified as follows:
$ curl -fsSL https://static.rust-lang.org/rust-key.gpg.ascii | gpg --import
$ gpg --verify <filename.asc> <filename>
The signatures were recognized but the ownership from https://static.rust-lang.org could not be verified. Because this URL can be trusted, it has been considered to blindly sign the corresponding key:
$ gpg --lsign-key 85AB96E6FA1BE5FE
There is no typographical error in the packages according to the check-pakage utility:
$ ./utils/check-package package/rust-bin/*
$ ./utils/check-package package/rust/*
The testsuites for the rust-bin and rust packages to test the Rust toolchain under 1.60.0 were successful:
$ ./support/testing/run-tests -k -d dl/ -o testsuite tests.package.test_rust.TestRustBin
$ ./support/testing/run-tests -k -d dl/ -o testsuite tests.package.test_rust.TestRust
In order to verify the compatibility of Rust 1.60.0 with packages relying on it, tests using `./utils/test-pkg` were run.
For example, running the following command with `.conf` file enabling the corresponding BR2_PACKAGE:
$ ./utils/test-pkg -d test-pkg -c ripgrep.config -p ripgrep
Results:
package/ripgrep: OK
package/librsvg : OK
package/suricata: OK
package/bat: OK
Notes:
- For all the mentionned packages, the successful build was made on the toolchain bootlin-armv7-glibc (except package/bat, for which it was bootlin-x86-64-musl).
- A redundant build fail was witnessed for the bootlin-x86-64-musl toolchain for all the packages tested (except for package/bat). The same tests were redone in the master branch and it was already the case with Rust 1.58.1.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Tran <nicolas.tran@smile.fr>
Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
b77600f508