rustup-init.sh: Check for /proc early #2664
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Check for /proc being mounted as soon as we identify that we're running the installer on Linux. We need /proc for various reasons and it'd be better to error out cleanly than to report spurious messages and then error out later in a confusing way. This fixes rust-lang#2654 Signed-off-by: Daniel Silverstone <[email protected]>
rbtcollins
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2021
AJ-Ianozi
pushed a commit
to AJ-Ianozi/getada-download
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 12, 2023
rustup-init.sh: Check for /proc early
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Check for /proc being mounted as soon as we identify that we're
running the installer on Linux. We need /proc for various reasons
and it'd be better to error out cleanly than to report spurious
messages and then error out later in a confusing way.
This fixes #2654
@joshtriplett Do you think this error is okay? Testing this in CI is a tad tough sadly.