[rust-dev] Deprecating rustpkg

Huon Wilson dbau.pp at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 01:17:23 PST 2014


On 28/01/14 19:36, György Andrasek wrote:
> 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.

rustpkg (theoretically) manages fetching and building dependencies (with 
the appropriate versions), as well as making sure those dependencies can 
be found (i.e. what the -L flag does for rustc).

>
> 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.
>

rustpkg is unfinished and has several bugs, so describing its current 
behaviour/usage as if it were its intended behaviour/usage is not 
correct. I believe it was designed to handle native (non-Rust) 
dependencies to some degree.


Huon


> [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
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev



More information about the Rust-dev mailing list