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

RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT not set by default #1684

Closed
Delet0r opened this Issue Mar 6, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@Delet0r
Copy link

Delet0r commented Mar 6, 2019

The rust install script (https://sh.rustup.rs) when executed fails with the error:

sh: 18: RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT: parameter not set
(23) Failed writing body

I tried it on two different ubuntu setup by executing curl https://sh.rustup.rs -sSf | sh. When I set the value manually it worked but as far as I understand it this variable should have been set with a default with a default value.

@Delet0r Delet0r added the bug label Mar 6, 2019

@thallada

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

thallada commented Mar 6, 2019

It looks like the script was just updated to fix this.

screen shot 2019-03-06 at 10 17 38 am

@scealiontach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

scealiontach commented Mar 6, 2019

problem introduced in #1495

The script now contains a potential contradiction if the user has not set a RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT. The set makes use of unbound variables an error, and then there is a check for if the variable is empty. This would be fine if the user had set RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT to an empty value, but breaks if they haven't set it at all. I have to believe that is quite common.
`
set -u

if [ -z "$RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT" ]; then
RUSTUP_UPDATE_ROOT="https://static.rust-lang.org/rustup"
fi
`

@dwijnand

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

dwijnand commented Mar 6, 2019

See #1683

@kinnison

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

kinnison commented Mar 6, 2019

All I'll say is that it was nearing midnight when I tested 1.17.0's installer, and I clearly tested 1.16.0's instead because I'm super-clever like that. Mea culpa.

@dwijnand

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

dwijnand commented Mar 6, 2019

I'll bankroll the use of a brand-new version number. No stress.

@kinnison

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

kinnison commented Mar 6, 2019

We have a fix live which is fine for now, so unless other issues are spotted with 1.17.0 which we weren't aware of, I figure we'll leave this be. @Delet0r are you okay for this issue to be closed?

@Delet0r

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

Delet0r commented Mar 6, 2019

Shure :D, thanks alot.

@dwijnand dwijnand closed this Mar 6, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.