Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools build: Fix rust feature detection

[Dmitry Dolgov]

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 05:54:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > To fix that I've tried to add an extra dependency on the rust binary on top of
> > that after the compilation is finished. While hacky, it worked just fine, and
> > perf catched it when rust was removed. Haven't faced any issues after few
> > rounds of installing/removing rust either. If this approach sound fine, I can
> > post the patch tomorrow.
> 
> Looks hacky, can't we just try to run:
> 
> ⬢ [acme@toolbx linux]$ HAVE_RUST=$(rustc --version > /dev/null ; echo $?)
> ⬢ [acme@toolbx linux]$ echo $HAVE_RUST
> 0
> ⬢ [acme@toolbx linux]$ HAVE_RUST=$(arustc --version > /dev/null ; echo $?)
> bash: arustc: command not found
> ⬢ [acme@toolbx linux]$ echo $HAVE_RUST
> 127
> ⬢ [acme@toolbx linux]$

Do you mean replacing the whole feature check with this, instead of
compiling a dummy code?

> How would your dep on the rust binary work? where would you expect it to
> be? It may be installed on some different path, etc.

It has to be in the PATH, so the actual binary could be picked up with
"which" (it seems to be used in one other place there as well).

> Perhaps there is precedent with some other component...

I haven't found anything similar among the other features, but I can
check out other components as well.