ci: Use GNU coreutils to work around a libffi-sys build failure

[Zalathar]

This is an attempt to work around the CI failures at #147556, by switching back to GNU coreutils (instead of uutils) on the Ubuntu 25.10 jobs.

• Zulip thread

[rustbot]

r? @Kobzol

rustbot has assigned @Kobzol.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[Zalathar]

@bors try jobs=aarch64-gnu,aarch64-gnu-debug,aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1,aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-2

[Kobzol]

Umm, why have we even been using Ubuntu 25.10 when it wasn't even released yet...

[Kobzol]

@bors r+ p=101

Let's try in parallel if it helps.

[bors]

📌 Commit 7f0adce has been approved by Kobzol

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

[RalfJung]

Since the queue is stopped, I think we might a swell "try" this by just landing it -- it's not like that'd be wasting any queue time...

@Kobzol do we still have to be careful with approving a PR while a try build is ongoing, or is that mitigated now that try builds are done by new-bors?

[RalfJung]

Ah okay, never mind. :)

@bors p=1001

[Kobzol]

Try and auto builds are completely separated now, so no need to wait. I approved the PR.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7f0adce with merge b3f8586...

[RalfJung]

Hm, is it actually testing this now or not? The error is confusing, at the very least...

[Kobzol]

It is confusing indeed. https://bors.rust-lang.org/queue/rust it is being tested.

[Zalathar]

Umm, why have we even been using Ubuntu 25.10 when it wasn't even released yet...

• Extends AArch64 branch protection support to include GCS #146338.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7af80be (7af80be95bc4bf61cf7d612fa95d0e157014662b, parent: 9725c4baacef19345e13f91b27e66e10ef5592ae)

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Kobzol
Pushing b3f8586 to master...

[RalfJung]

@/bors treeclosed-
This should fix things, hopefully :)

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 9725c4b (parent) -> b3f8586 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard b3f8586fb1e4859678d6b231e780ff81801d2282 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. aarch64-apple: 7698.4s -> 6500.8s (-15.6%)
2. dist-aarch64-apple: 7683.7s -> 6495.7s (-15.5%)
3. dist-loongarch64-linux: 5270.0s -> 6082.5s (15.4%)
4. dist-x86_64-apple: 7535.0s -> 6586.5s (-12.6%)
5. dist-aarch64-msvc: 6167.9s -> 5519.9s (-10.5%)
6. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4009.5s -> 4429.1s (10.5%)
7. dist-apple-various: 3912.6s -> 3569.6s (-8.8%)
8. tidy: 197.4s -> 180.1s (-8.8%)
9. dist-various-1: 3892.0s -> 4163.2s (7.0%)
10. dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl: 5467.7s -> 5134.0s (-6.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b3f8586): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[0.9%, 2.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-2.7%, 2.3%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 472.692s -> 473.801s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 388.03 MiB -> 388.06 MiB (0.01%)