3 ms·
> It's about having a shorter auditable bootstrap process Yeah, in 2018 the chain looked like this[1]: g++ -> mrustc@0.8.0 -> rust@1.19.0 -> rust@1.20.0 -
by quectophoton 2y ago
> It's about having a shorter auditable bootstrap process
Yeah, in 2018 the chain looked like this[1]:
g++ -> mrustc@0.8.0 -> rust@1.19.0 -> rust@1.20.0 -> rust@1.21.0 -> rust@1.22.1 -> rust@1.23.0 -> rust@1.24.1 -> rust@1.25.0 -> rust@1.26.2 -> rust@1.27.2 -> rust@1.28.0
Though for me it's less the auditable part, and more that I would be able to build the compiler myself if I wanted, without jumping through so many unnecessary hoops. For the same reason I like having the source code of programs I use, even if most of the time I just use my package manager's signed executable.
And if someone open sources their program, but then the build process is a deliberately convoluted process, then to me that starts to smell like malicious compliance ("it's technically open source"). It's still a gift since I'd get the code either way, so I appreciate that, but my opinion would obviously be different between someone who gives freedoms to users in a seemingly-reluctant way vs someone who gives freedoms to users in an encouraging way.
[1]: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2018/bootstrapping-rust/ https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2018/bootstrapping-rust/