[rust-dev] Deprecating rustpkg

Ian Daniher explodingmind at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 11:28:22 PST 2014


Lots of good points in this thread, but I wanted to request deprecation,
but not removal until a better alternative is documented and made
available. Rustpkg works for my needs - I use it every day -  but it
definitely needs some TLC.

Thanks!
--
Ian


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM, SiegeLord <slabode at aim.com> wrote:

> On 01/27/2014 11:53 PM, Jeremy Ong 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 can only speak for myself, but here are some reasons why I abandoned
> rustpkg and switched to CMake.
>
> Firstly, and overarchingly, it was the attitude of the project development
> with respect to issues. As a comparison, let me consider Rust the language.
> It is a pain to make my code pass the borrow check sometimes, the lifetimes
> are perhaps the most frustrating aspect of Rust. I put up with them
> however, because they solve a gigantic problem and are the keystone of
> Rust's safety-without-GC story. rustpkg also has many incredibly
> frustrating aspects, but they are there (in my opinion) arbitrarily and not
> as a solution to any real problem. When I hit them, I do not get the same
> sense of purposeful sacrifice I get with Rust's difficult points. Let me
> outline the specific issues I personally hit (I know of other ones, but I
> haven't encountered them personally).
>
> Conflation of package id and source. That fact combined with the fact that
> to depend on some external package you have to write "extern mod = pkgid"
> meant that you needed to create bizarre directory structures to depend on
> locally developed packages (e.g. you'd have to put your locally developed
> project in a directory tree like so: github.com/SiegeLord/Project). This
> is not something I was going to do.
>
> The package dependencies are written in the source file, which makes it
> onerous to switch between versions/forks. A simple package script would
> have solved it, but it wasn't present by design.
>
> My repositories have multiple crates, and rustpkg is woefully
> under-equipped to handle that case. You cannot build them without dealing
> with pkg.rs, and using them from other projects seemed impossible too
> (the extern mod syntax wasn't equipped to handle multiple crates per
> package). This is particularly vexing when you have multiple example
> programs alongside your library. I was not going to split my repository up
> just because rustpkg wasn't designed to handle that case.
>
> All of those points would be solved by having an explicit package
> description file/script which was THE overarching design non-goal of
> rustpkg. After that was made clear to me, I just ditched it and went to C++
> style package "management" and a CMake build system.
>
> -SL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140128/88bc67db/attachment.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list