bump rustyline to version 18.0.0

[abmclin]

Fixes regression discovered on Linux after upgrading rustyline to 17.0.2; SIGINT not handled as expected, breaking ability to interrupt nontermination in scryer.

This was due to a change in rustyline's SIGINT behavior since version 16 and corrected in version 18.

Please see discussion in #3271

[mthom]

Looks like rustc needs a version bump

[Skgland]

Looks like rustc needs a version bump

The msrv was chosen based on the available version in Debian stable (i.e. Trixie) see the discussion in #2784 .

[Skgland]

Does something require home 0.5.12 or can the command from the error message be used to revert the lock file entry to 0.5.11?

The answer to my question is no as rustyline 18.0.0 has an optional default dependency on home 0.5.12

[abmclin]

Out of curiosity, how did you determine rustc version needs bumping (assuming meant rust-version = "1.85" in Cargo.toml)?

[Skgland]

Out of curiosity, how did you determine rustc version needs bumping (assuming meant rust-version = "1.85" in Cargo.toml)?

The CI job testing that the MSRV¹ still works failed² with the following error message:

error: rustc 1.85.1 is not supported by the following package:
  home@0.5.12 requires rustc 1.88
Either upgrade rustc or select compatible dependency versions with
`cargo update <name>@<current-ver> --precise <compatible-ver>`
where `<compatible-ver>` is the latest version supporting rustc 1.85.1

Footnotes

1. yes, this referrs to rust-version = ... in Cargo.toml ↩

2. see https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/actions/runs/24014252583/job/70030844238?pr=3283#step:5:359 ↩

[abmclin]

Are we sticking with trixie's rustc version (1.85) or going with the version available in trixie backports (1.91.1)?

[Skgland]

Are we sticking with trixie's rustc version (1.85) or going with the version available in trixie backports (1.91.1)?

I already asked over in #2784 (comment) whether compatible with debian stable backports would be sufficent or if we would want full debian stable main compatibility, but have not gotten any responses as of writing this comment.

I would be fine with the relaxed compatibility with just backports, maybe @mthom, @triska, @bakaq or someone else want to chime in on this? Best place to chime in would would probably the comment thread of #2784 (comment) to not derail/fill-up this PR too much.

[abmclin]

I moved this over to its own proper branch separate from master and made a fresh PR #3290 sorry about the extra noise.