devguide: recommend using rustup to install rust - v1

[jufajardini]

During Outreachy onboarding, we noticed that we weren't referring to rust installation via rustup, in our devguide.

Describe changes:

• remove indication to install rust and cargo via apt
• add instructions to install rust via rustup, and reference to rust install docs
• tiny style reword

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9612 (ac29aea) into master (1a132f4) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9612      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.28%   82.26%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         968      968              
  Lines      274275   274275              
==========================================
- Hits       225700   225640      -60     
- Misses      48575    48635      +60     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	64.38% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️
suricata-verify	60.90% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unittests	62.87% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[victorjulien]

I disagree with this change. We should use the distro packages unless there is a reason they are insufficient.

[jufajardini]

I disagree with this change. We should use the distro packages unless there is a reason they are insufficient.

Invoking @jasonish in case he has strong opinions on this '-'

[jasonish]

I disagree with this change. We should use the distro packages unless there is a reason they are insufficient.

Target audience. For end users installing from git, we should use the packages.

For developers installing from git, rustup is probably the best. Its the only way to install/test different versions of Rust, which could be a reason for CI failure, etc. This is in the developers guide, not the user install guide.

[victorjulien]

I disagree with this change. We should use the distro packages unless there is a reason they are insufficient.

Target audience. For end users installing from git, we should use the packages.

For developers installing from git, rustup is probably the best. Its the only way to install/test different versions of Rust, which could be a reason for CI failure, etc. This is in the developers guide, not the user install guide.

I disagree. We also don't recommend installing your own C compiler or specific versions of libc. Rust packaging has come along far enough that we can use it in development. I think it's fine to have a section to explain benefits of using a more recent version, but not claim it's needed or recommended.

[jasonish]

I disagree with this change. We should use the distro packages unless there is a reason they are insufficient.

Target audience. For end users installing from git, we should use the packages.
For developers installing from git, rustup is probably the best. Its the only way to install/test different versions of Rust, which could be a reason for CI failure, etc. This is in the developers guide, not the user install guide.

I disagree. We also don't recommend installing your own C compiler or specific versions of libc. Rust packaging has come along far enough that we can use it in development. I think it's fine to have a section to explain benefits of using a more recent version, but not claim it's needed or recommended.

Its not there yet. Want clippy, rustup component add clippy, same with rust-analyzer: rustup component add rust-analyzer.

Likewise, we're likely to request changes on a commit that doesn't pass the lints in CI, which might require a user to change to a specific version of rust. Trivial with rustup. None of this is about using a more recent version.

[jufajardini]

Closing as we haven't agreed upon the best approach, here.