Daniel Silverstone

If we are going to make such a breaking change I agree that an RFC would be best. If we're to file an RFC we need to think through all...

I think that's a reasonable compromise. I will note though that not autoinstalling on `rustup default XXX` would result in a substantial sweeping change (though not a complex one) across...

I can almost imagine that as `rustup toolchain install .` (effectively use `.` to mean 'whatever I need to build *this here*'.

I think installing from a dir is more `rustup toolchain link` and we could always do tarball installations from `rustup toolchain unpack` or similar. The verb doesn't always have to...

Hmm I like `ensure` that's nice.

@couchand This is quite a controversial and intricate thing which needs careful thought to address because unlike other places where breaking changes are version controlled and can be handled more...

I don't recommend running `rustup update` or similar inside containers. Sadly container runtimes don't offer full filesystem semantics which results in things going bad. Instead ensure that you have rustup,...

This is fascinating, We build the hard links by linking to `rustup` in that directory, so the question comes, how did that come to be a symlink instead of a...

Homebrew installing `rustup-init` seems very confusing to me - is it providing a no-self-update binary? if so realistically it should be providing `rustup` and the proxy set `rustc`, `cargo` etc....

Right, so realistically if homebrew is expecting to be in control of updating `rustup` then instead of providing `rustup-init` to users, it *should* be providing `rustup` and all the proxies...