EEE
The systemd project has officially introduced support for developing programs in Rust, following the merger of a pull request submitted by Linux kernel developer Christian Brauner. The change, merged into the project’s main branch, establishes a new development option for systemd while keeping its existing C-based architecture intact.
And before anyone assumes systemd is preparing a complete rewrite in Rust, that’s not the case. The maintainers agreed on a deliberately limited approach: Rust may be used only for new, standalone components that other parts of systemd do not depend on. Existing C code will remain untouched.
Another important decision concerns the build process. Rather than introducing Cargo, Rust’s standard package manager and build tool, systemd continues to use Meson for all builds. This keeps Rust development integrated into the project’s existing build infrastructure.
The implementation also places strict limits on dependencies. Rust programs use the no_std approach, meaning they do not rely on Rust’s standard library or external third-party crates. Instead, they interact with systemd’s existing C libraries through generated bindings.
For memory management, systemd provides its own Rust implementations of common container types, with allocation failures handled explicitly rather than causing the program to abort. The new infrastructure also includes wrappers for logging, command-line argument handling, event processing, and error management, allowing Rust utilities to behave consistently with their C counterparts.
Rust support is optional and automatically detected during configuration. Developers wishing to enable it need Rust 1.85 or later, bindgen 0.71.1 or later, and Meson 1.4 or later. Systems without the required toolchain can continue building systemd without Rust support.
Interestingly, initial tests show that a stripped Rust command-line utility occupies about 32 KB, compared to 20 KB for its C equivalent built with link-time optimization. This gives an early indication of the additional overhead, though the comparison involves only a small test program.
The first planned real-world application of this infrastructure is systemd-keyring-setup, a new utility intended to help manage certificates in Linux kernel keyrings. Its implementation is being developed separately, alongside additional Rust wrappers for systemd’s shared libraries.
For Linux distributions, the change introduces packaging considerations. Builds that enable all available features will need the appropriate Rust compiler and bindgen dependencies or must disable Rust support to avoid build failures.
Whether Rust becomes widely used within systemd will depend on future development, but the necessary groundwork is now in place.



You don’t need to be a developer in order to compile little programs. Like in C it is totally normal to do so, without being a programmer. Just use a make command on a Github project and install it manually. I would put Rust at the same level as C, so yes, most people wouldn’t have it installed or need it. But the compile
rustcshould be packaged by all distributions and it should be part of a meta package for basic development tools (also used by non developers).In a way that any program could assume everyone on Linux is able to compile with a basic Makefile, like we do this with C in example (if compiler tools are installed). I didn’t even think about dynamically linked standard library.
Fair enough, I guess.
Personally, I don’t really see the point, because there’s hardly any projects that can be compiled with just
rustc.I mean,
cargois actually surprisingly useful for normal users, because there’s a decent chance you can compile medium-sized Rust projects without having to jump through endless hoops.But yeah, at that point, you’re adding a nontrivial number of megabytes to user installations for something they might not use. I would guess that even just rustc is larger than gcc and clang, since it implements more sophisticated logic…
Because having rustc as a standard tool is not there yet. Off course most don’t expect someone to have rustc only on their computer. I love Cargo, don’t get me wrong. But I think there could be a rise of non Cargo and library dependency projects in future, if the infrastructure (meaning rustc and the standard library can be expected as standard dependency) is available once.
Just like not every little project of C requires additional dependency trackers. One could download a project from Git and build it with rustc+make and only the dependencies available in your repository. One of the major issues with the public cratesio is, that not everyone wants to depend on it. In example Linux or other projects don’t use it (as far as I know). So there might be use cases. Just like we use Python and Haskell without additional libraries, or only install them from our systems repository.
Maybe it shouldn’t be installed by default. But having an infastructure with basic system packages to install only “Rust” (rustc+stdlib), no cargo, no rustfmt, no rustup. Maybe this will be available once
gcc-rustis ready.I think you’re clearly clueless and should stop opining on matters you know nothing about.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about.
There is more. But I don’t have the time untangle the webs of cluelessness in your comments.
deleted by creator
Well, like with everything now, rust is much more than the compiler, and will need the entire toolchain, so you’d want rustup or pinned toolchain packages so you had access to cargo and the full ecosystem.
All major distributions ship their own compiled rustc/cargo packages already, and they’ve done so for years.
And putting rust projects using nightly features aside*, stable rust version updates are much less disruptive than major GCC or clang updates. Breakages are rare, known in advance, and communicated to upstreams before hand (look up “crater” if you want to learn more).
* Not sure if distros package, or need to package any such packages, but I didn’t do any surveys on the subject.
Rust has a compiler
rustcwhich does not need the entire toolchain like cargo and eco system. It can be used like Python and C with standard libraries only and adding libraries manually without package manager.yes, but to manually build packages against libraries yourself would be a nightmare of tooling without cargo.
It’s no different than every
base-develand similar package requiringcmakebecause sure, you could manually run the c/c++ compilers and linkers yourself against every single file, passing in the flags yourself, but that would take an obscene amount of time to manually build and run every compiler command yourselfhttps://wiki.debian.org/Rust
Debian builds it’s own local cargo registry by default. If your distro provides “pinned versions” like I said, you won’t need rustup, but you’ll still need cargo to do anything beyond a tiny project with no imports, unless you plan on writing async/http/encryption libraries all yourself.
It would be similar to how we build C with make or any other language, using a Makefile in example. In example if the project contains all dependencies in the Git repository already and does not need to download extra dependencies. The Makefile and configuration would handle all of that. Or for projects that do not require dependencies, it would be quite simple compiling.
Debian uses cargo, which is what I would avoid. Cargo is a package manager, that is the exact thing I’m trying to avoid here with the suggestion. I think of dependencies integrated into the system package manager (pacman in example). Debian needs to do this cargo registry, because there is no other infastructure.
Cargo combines the features of a package manager with a build system. You can just used the build system without touching the package manager, which is what Debian and other distros do. But I mean sure, for C there’s make cmake automake ninja meson so why not make another for rust
CMake also supports building Rust! And guess what, systemd is not using Cargo. All of the new Rust code will be
![no_std], and use the existing Meson build system.Right, it totally makes sense to use your existing build system if your project is a mature C/C++ project, and especially if your project is something like systemd, which is the backbone of the vast majority of linux installations. That’s a special case, I would argue, whereas 1% of rust programs that import any external code can be built out of the box with cmake/ninja/meson and 99% of them rely on cargo and likely a build.rs.
You’re right. But it is one of the advantages of Rust (and imo one of the key factors of its popularity) that it can also just spit out normal, C-compatible object files.
Nobody is talking about making another make tool for Rust.
ok a makefile is basically a script runner like this. the c/c++ compiler doesn’t touch the makefile, that’s a separate tool
edit : main.o kbd.o command.o display.o \ insert.o search.o files.o utils.o cc -o edit main.o kbd.o command.o display.o \ insert.o search.o files.o utils.o main.o : main.c defs.h cc -c main.c kbd.o : kbd.c defs.h command.h cc -c kbd.c command.o : command.c defs.h command.h cc -c command.c display.o : display.c defs.h buffer.h cc -c display.c insert.o : insert.c defs.h buffer.h cc -c insert.c search.o : search.c defs.h buffer.h cc -c search.c files.o : files.c defs.h buffer.h command.h cc -c files.c utils.o : utils.c defs.h cc -c utils.c clean : rm edit main.o kbd.o command.o display.o \ insert.o search.o files.o utils.ofor a rust program, you might have a cargo.toml like
[package] name = "jsontool" version = "0.1.0" edition = "2021" [dependencies] anyhow = "1" clap = { version = "4", features = ["derive"] } serde = { version = "1", features = ["derive"] } serde_json = "1" [profile.release] lto = true``` and .cargo/config.toml like (for the local distro config, no internet packages)[source.crates-io] replace-with = “distro”
[source.distro] directory = “/usr/share/cargo/registry” # or: registry = “sparse+https://crates.internal.example/index/”
[net] offline = true
If you wanted that same functionality from a makefile for rust it would be something likeMakefile: build jsontool with plain rustc, no cargo.
RUSTC ?= rustc REG := /usr/share/cargo/registry OUT := $(abspath build) HOST := $(shell $(RUSTC) -vV | sed -n ‘s/^host: //p’) FLAGS := -C opt-level=3 --cap-lints=allow -L dependency=$(OUT) --out-dir $(OUT) ext = $(foreach c,$(1),–extern $©=$(OUT)/lib$©.rlib) extpm = $(foreach c,$(1),–extern $©=$(OUT)/lib$©.so)
Pinned by hand. Cargo.lock does this for you; here, a distro upgrade
renames these directories and the build breaks.
UNICODE_IDENT := $(REG)/unicode-ident-1.0.13 PROC_MACRO2 := $(REG)/proc-macro2-1.0.89 QUOTE := $(REG)/quote-1.0.37 SYN := $(REG)/syn-2.0.85 SERDE_DERIVE := $(REG)/serde_derive-1.0.213
… ~20 more …
---- 1. Plain library crate ----
Edition, crate name (hyphens -> underscores), and features all come from
reading each crate’s Cargo.toml yourself.
$(OUT)/libunicode_ident.rlib: $(RUSTC) --edition=2018 --crate-type=lib --crate-name unicode_ident
$(FLAGS) $(UNICODE_IDENT)/src/lib.rs
---- 2. Crate with a build.rs: compile it, run it with the env vars cargo
would set, then scrape its stdout for cfg flags ----
$(OUT)/proc_macro2.cfg: mkdir -p $(OUT)/bs-pm2 $(RUSTC) --edition=2021 --crate-type=bin $(PROC_MACRO2)/build.rs
-o $(OUT)/bs-pm2/build-script cd $(PROC_MACRO2) && env OUT_DIR=$(OUT)/bs-pm2 RUSTC=$(RUSTC)
TARGET=$(HOST) HOST=$(HOST) PROFILE=release OPT_LEVEL=3
CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR=$(PROC_MACRO2) CARGO_PKG_VERSION=1.0.89
CARGO_FEATURE_DEFAULT=1 CARGO_FEATURE_PROC_MACRO=1
CARGO_CFG_TARGET_OS=linux CARGO_CFG_TARGET_ARCH=x86_64
$(OUT)/bs-pm2/build-script
| sed -n ‘s/^cargo::?rustc-cfg=(.*)/–cfg=\1/p’ > $@
$(OUT)/libproc_macro2.rlib: $(OUT)/proc_macro2.cfg $(OUT)/libunicode_ident.rlib $(RUSTC) --edition=2021 --crate-type=lib --crate-name proc_macro2 $(FLAGS)
–cfg ‘feature=“default”’ --cfg ‘feature=“proc-macro”’
$$(cat $<) $(call ext,unicode_ident) $(PROC_MACRO2)/src/lib.rs
---- 3. Proc-macro crate: different crate type, must be built for the
HOST (matters when cross-compiling), linked as a .so ----
syn’s feature list must be the UNION of what serde_derive AND clap_derive
need. Cargo computes this (feature unification); here you work it out by hand.
$(OUT)/libserde_derive.so: $(OUT)/libproc_macro2.rlib $(OUT)/libquote.rlib $(OUT)/libsyn.rlib $(RUSTC) --edition=2015 --crate-type=proc-macro --crate-name serde_derive
$(FLAGS) --cfg ‘feature=“default”’
$(call ext,proc_macro2 quote syn) $(SERDE_DERIVE)/src/lib.rs
… ~20 more rules like the above (serde, serde_json, anyhow, and
clap_* each have their own quirks, and several have build.rs) …
---- Finally, your program ----
clap’s derive expands to env!(“CARGO_PKG_VERSION”), so you fake cargo’s env.
Source files are listed by hand (or you wire up --emit=dep-info .d files).
build/jsontool: src/main.rs src/cli.rs src/convert.rs $(ALL_DEPS) CARGO_PKG_NAME=jsontool CARGO_PKG_VERSION=0.1.0
$(RUSTC) --edition=2021 --crate-type=bin --crate-name jsontool $(FLAGS)
$(call ext,anyhow clap serde serde_json) src/main.rs
Still to write: test (rustc --test + every --extern again), doc-tests
(rustdoc --test), debug vs release flags, clean, install…
So are you proposing GNU style makefiles for rust then? You say not another tool, just use the compiler. Either you type those commands yourself, you type them into a make style build script, or cargo or **another tool** automates them.No, I am not talking about the same functionality and without using cargo. I am talking about using rustc to compile individual Rust programs.
$ ls -1 hello.rs main.rsmain.rs:
mod hello; fn main() { hello::print_hello(); }hello.rs:
pub fn print_hello() { println!("Hello World!"); }No Cargo, no toml, no registry.