[rust-dev] Cargo requirements
talex5 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 10:47:21 PST 2012
On 7 February 2012 22:52, Graydon Hoare <graydon at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 4:13 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>> But it doesn't remove the need to handle diamond dependencies. Very
>> often (most of the time, I think), if two libraries depend on a common
>> one then it's because they need to communicate using a common API or
>> common set of data-types.
> This is true to an extent. Within Rust (when the versioning mechanism is
> finished, tested, integrated into cargo) we'll handle disagreeing-diamonds
Sorry, I'm still not clear about this. For example, I wrote a simple
GTK text editor that uses the GtkSourceView library. By "handle
disagreeing-diamonds", do you meaning that
a) my program and GtkSourceView see a single version of GTK,
compatible with both of them, or
b) they each see a version of GTK they are compatible with, but not
necessarily the same one (so I cannot embed the GtkSourceView widget
into my GtkWindow)?
(assuming here that GTK and GtkSourceView are Rust libraries, or Rust
wrappers for the C libraries)
> For libraries outside Rust, there are mechanisms people have worked out for
> each OS to try to manage such disagreeing-diamonds too (sonames, which don't
> work because they don't sort and don't get bumped often enough; symbol
> versioning, which might work except nobody uses it; SxS, which works more
> like rust, but gets enormous).
> What I'm saying, repeating here since it didn't seem to stick with the last
> message, is is that there is a threshold at which any such
> version-everything solution *must give up*.
I don't recall saying anything else. I'm just trying to find out how
Rust plans to cope with some common packaging problems. My experience
from other languages is that situations such as the GTK one above are
> You cannot version the entire universe. Not even the software-and-hardware
> universe. Both because it's too big and because (as I get to down below)
> each level is itself non-computable.
You mean the problem of selecting a set of versions such that the
program is guaranteed to compile and run correctly? Of course we can't
But any piece of software will come with some requirements from the
author, like "You need GTK >= 2.12 to compile this program". These
requirements have to be satisfied somehow. Either the computer does
it, or the human does it.
>> For example, if I write an application using GTK to handle windows,
>> and I import a widget library, then it's no good having the widget
>> library using its own version of GTK, because I won't be able to embed
>> its widgets in my windows.
> I know, it's awful, and you can't always solve this. Even if you put the
> GTKs *right next to each other* in the target environment you can't even
> solve this, because they have global PLT-resolved symbols they fail to
> version and the loader may pick some from one library and some from another
> as it lazily resolves stuff.
If the application and the library really do require different
versions of GTK (e.g. <2 and >2) then you can't solve it. But if they
require e.g. <2.12 and >2.10 then selecting 2.10.1 would be fine.
>> Sure, but now the user needs to manage two separate logging
>> configurations for the same application, or risk them overwriting each
>> other's log files (although this is probably a bad example, as I see
>> that Rust very sensibly has built-in logging support).
>> By the way, does this mean that a Rust program must link against
>> exactly the same version of the library that was used at build time?
>> e.g. if I upgrade libssl then I must rebuild all applications using
> No, we'll probably support some level of version-range or prefix-matching.
> Despite the fact that this *weakens* the likelihood of proper functioning.
> I accept, however, that precise-versioning and loose-coupled-upgrades are in
> inherent engineering-tradeoff with one another. So I'm ok picking a point on
> the tradeoff spectrum based on my sense of taste and annoyance (in
> consultation with others). I don't believe it's solvable.
Naturally. It's up to the programmer how tight to make the bounds.
Incidentally, keeping the metadata outside of the source code can help
with this (when a new GTK comes out and breaks your program, you can
just update the metadata file on the web-server with a tighter
requirement rather than making a whole new release).
> Really, as I said above, I feel like this whole conversation is stuck on
> your assumption that the problem is actually solvable (or even precisely
> denotable). And in a very thorough and concrete way, I don't think it is.
> For perhaps 4 broad reasons (along with a zillion technical details):
I don't think I ever claimed any such thing (I only asked how Rust
plans to handle dependencies).
I do believe that, given a set of version constraints specified by the
programmers of the various components, there exist algorithms to
select a set of versions that meet all of them (if any such selection
exists). Indeed, 0install uses such an algorithm. If the programmer
doesn't state a requirement then 0install doesn't consider it.
> 1. There's tension between precise-coupling (for correctness) and
> loose-coupling (for ease of use). This is why versioning systems
> often support imprecise wildcard matching, symbolic names, etc.
> And as soon as you have symbolic names you have a problem of
> naming authority, which -- if you take seriously -- you wind up
> having to invent something like PKI in order to solve. Punt to
> DNS or GPG whenever possible, maybe, but Naming Is Hard and it's
> usually a source of endless assumption-mismatch, precisely because
> names occupy a weird, ill-defined neither-zone between structured
> data and opaque nonces.
> 2. A -> B dependency when A and B are turing-complete artifacts is
> generally non-computable. I.e. you can't even *define* when you
> have "captured" a dependency accurately. You can capture a declared
> dependency but it doesn't actually guarantee there's no undeclared
> dependency. This is why many people are taking to using bit-identity
> of the delivered artifacts (git content addressing, "ship the DLLs
> side-by-side with the .exe", or just shipping whole system images
> / VM images / etc. rather than symbolically-described "packages")
> 3. Enumerating the "dependencies of A" depends on what you want to
> *do* with A. 0install talks about executing, but we need to compile,
> bootstrap-compile, recompile-LLVM-and-self-host-with-it, build docs,
> build debugging output, run tests ... you wind up reinventing build
> systems in general in order to handle all the things a developer
> wants to capture the "dependencies for".
> 4. The *entire* environment is a dependency. It's often not just
> non-computable but physically off limits to versioning. I.e. you
> can version a kernel but not the firmware of the machine it's
> running, on because the firmware isn't under software control,
> can't be analyzed/sandboxed/controlled. This goes double for
> the network environment in which something runs or, heaven forbid,
> the physical environment in which the system winds up instantiated.
> The problem is just ... bottomless. I'm sorry. I know you've spent a lot of
> energy on versioning and built an ambitious system. I'm sympathetic. I did
> so too, a long time back. But I'm relatively convinced at this point that
> there's no Correct Solution, just a bunch of wrong ones that have different
> forms of associated pain and cognitive load, and at some point you have to
> draw a line and get on with whatever else you were Actually Doing, rather
> than further work on versioning. We're doing a programming language. I'm ok
> developing cargo and rustc based on perceived and encountered needs, rather
> than striving for perfection.
Sure. 0install is the same. In 2003, it worked just as Cargo does now
(you could depend on a specific version, or on the "latest" version).
Later, that turned out to be too limited. In 2005, it gained version
ranges and a naive solver (that just walked the tree depth first
selecting the best available version for each component as it went).
That was OK for smaller programs. As the number of (declared)
dependencies got larger, that broke down and we replaced it with a
proper SAT solver that always finds a correct solution (if one exists,
or aborts otherwise).
Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
More information about the Rust-dev