[rust-dev] Deprecating rustpkg

György Andrasek jurily at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 00:36:44 PST 2014

I never quite understood the problem `rustpkg` was meant to solve. For 
building Rust code, `rustc --out-dir build` is good enough. For running 
tests and benchmarks, `rustc` is good enough. For downloading things, I 
still need to feed it a github address, which kinda takes away any value 
it could have over `git clone` or git submodules.

What I would actually need from a build system, i.e. finding 
{C,C++,Rust} libraries, building {C,C++,Rust} libraries/executables and 
linking them to said {C,C++,Rust} libraries, it doesn't do. It also 
doesn't bootstrap rustc.

[Disclaimer: I've never quite got a rustpkg workflow going. It's 
probably awesome, but completely overshadowed by `rustc`.]

On 01/28/2014 09:02 AM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Val Markovic <val at markovic.io> wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2014 8:53 PM, "Jeremy Ong" <jeremycong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm somewhat new to the Rust dev scene. Would anybody care to summarize
>>> roughly what the deficiencies are in the existing system in the interest of
>>> forward progress? It may help seed the discussion for the next effort as
>>> well.
>> I'd like to second this request. I haven't used rustpkg myself but I've read
>> its reference manual (
>> https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/master/doc/rustpkg.md) and it sounds
>> like a reasonable design. Again, since I haven't used it, I'm sure I'm
>> missing some obvious flaws.
> Thirded. I implemented rustpkg as it's currently known, and did so in
> the open, detailing what I was thinking about in a series of
> exhaustively detailed blog posts. Since few people seemed very
> interested in providing feedback on it as I was developing it (with
> the exception of Graydon, who also worked on the initial design), I
> assumed that it was on the right track. I rewrote rustpkg because
> there was a perception that the initial design of rustpkg was not on
> the right track, nor was cargo, but obviously simply rewriting the
> whole system from scratch in the hopes that it would be better didn't
> work, since people are talking about throwing it out. So, before
> anybody embarks on a third rewrite in the hopes that *that* will be
> better, I suggest that a working group form to look at what went wrong
> in the past 2 or 3 attempts at implementing a build system / package
> system for Rust, so that those mistakes can be learned from. Perhaps
> all that needs to be done differently is that someone more central to
> the community needs to write it, but if that's what it takes, it seems
> preferable to the wasted time and effort that I imagine will ensue
> from yet another rewrite for the sake of throwing out code.
> Cheers,
> Tim

More information about the Rust-dev mailing list