Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Shorten toolchain names for display when they correspond to the default architecture #351

Open
brson opened this issue Apr 21, 2016 · 1 comment

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Apr 21, 2016

Here's an example of current output:

info: syncing channel updates for 'stable-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
info: syncing channel updates for 'beta-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
info: syncing channel updates for 'nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
info: downloading component 'rustc'
info: downloading component 'rust-std'
info: downloading component 'rust-docs'
info: downloading component 'cargo'
info: installing component 'rustc'
info: installing component 'rust-std'
info: installing component 'rust-docs'
info: installing component 'cargo'
info: syncing channel updates for '1.8.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
info: checking for self-updates
info: rustup is up to date

  stable-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu unchanged - rustc 1.8.0 (db2939409 2016-04-11)
    beta-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu unchanged - rustc 1.9.0-beta.1 (37a2869af 2016-04-12)
   nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu updated - rustc 1.10.0-nightly (a0c325980 2016-04-20)
   1.8.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu unchanged - rustc 1.8.0 (db2939409 2016-04-11)

This is too verbose for my taste. Since these are all for the default architucture I'd rather they not mention it.

For platforms with multiple viable architectures like windows it may still be useful to indicate the target triple, so this information may be important to indicate somewhere.

I haven't convinced myself that I actually want to do this, but asked for feedback on irlo.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented May 12, 2017

Feedback on this has not been positive so far, as I recall. Anybody think this is a good idea?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants