[pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/1] Better explain the situations where it makes sense to adapt the rustup configuration

[Laurențiu Leahu-Vlăducu]

On 16.12.24 12:15, Shannon Sterz wrote:
> On Mon Dec 16, 2024 at 12:01 PM CET, Laurențiu Leahu-Vlăducu wrote:
>> This patches adds some explanations about the situations where it makes sense to adapt the rustup configuration.
>> While this is not necessary if the Debian rustc package is used, it makes sense in case a newer / beta / nightly
>> compiler should be used for testing. The current documentation was worded in such a way that it sounded
>> as if rustup should always be set, which is not necessary unless additional compilers have to be used.
>>
>> This patch replaces "[PATCH proxmox-backup] Remove mentioning rustup in README.rst because it's no longer needed"
>> as discussed here: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/2024-December/012105.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurențiu Leahu-Vlăducu <l.leahu-vladucu at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   README.rst | 6 ++++--
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/README.rst b/README.rst
>> index 0caa9874..81957533 100644
>> --- a/README.rst
>> +++ b/README.rst
>> @@ -5,8 +5,10 @@ Build & Release Notes
>>   ``rustup`` Toolchain
>>   ====================
>>
>> -We normally want to build with the ``rustc`` Debian package. To do that
>> -you can set the following ``rustup`` configuration:
>> +We normally want to build with the ``rustc`` Debian package (see below). If you still want to
>> +use ``rustup`` for other reasons (e.g. to easily switch between the official
>> +stable, beta, and nightly compilers), you should set the following ``rustup`` configuration
>> +to use the Debian-provided ``rustc`` compiler by default:
>>
>>       # rustup toolchain link system /usr
>>       # rustup default system
> 
> hm this is now wrapped at 100 chars (as is standard for our rust source
> code), but for .rst files we seem to use wrapping at 80 chars afaict.
> the rest of the file is also wrapped at 80 chars (with some small
> exceptions). so i think i'd prefer it if your patch stuck to the 80
> chars here.
> 

You are right, thanks for the info. I have now sent a second version of 
my patch where the lines are wrapped at 80 chars.