Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cargo makes target-dir path relative to user's home directory #7843

Open
klozovin opened this issue Jan 28, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Cargo makes target-dir path relative to user's home directory #7843

klozovin opened this issue Jan 28, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
A-configuration Area: cargo config files and env vars C-bug Category: bug S-needs-design Status: Needs someone to work further on the design for the feature or fix. NOT YET accepted.

Comments

@klozovin
Copy link

I have a setting of target-dir = ".cargo" in ~/.cargo/config, to rename the default build directory. It has worked fine in the past, but now it seems that cargo takes the target-dir path to mean realtive to my home directory, instead of relative to the project's directory.

Right now my cargo (rustc 1.40.0 (73528e339 2019-12-16 on Linux) with that option set, tries to build every project in a single directory: ~/.cargo. That of course creates problems. Also, running cargo clean in any projects deletes the main ~/.cargo directory!

Using env variable $CARGO_TARGET_DIR to achieve what I want works just fine.

Using .cargo/config inside my project also works! But, as soon as I execute cargo clean cargo deletes .cargo directory in the project, so the setting is lost.

Maybe this issue is related #7551?

@klozovin klozovin added the C-bug Category: bug label Jan 28, 2020
@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

ehuss commented Jan 30, 2020

Hm, this was a bit of an unexpected change from #7456.

@alexcrichton do you have any thoughts on how this should behave? It looks like target_dir has been special since #2703 where it was interpreted as relative to cwd.

I'm a little concerned about treating paths inconsistently (some config-relative, others cwd-relative). It's also questionable whether cwd relative makes sense, versus workspace-relative, versus config-relative.

I wonder if it might be worthwhile to have a way for the user to control how relative paths are treated (like #6210)?

For reference, the list of config vars with paths (which are treated as config-relative):

  • paths
  • build.target-dir
  • build.dep-info-basedir
  • http.cainfo
  • install.root
  • source.<name>.directory
  • source.<name>.local-registry

And program paths which have a special case to search PATH instead:

  • build.rustc
  • build.rustc-wrapper
  • build.rustdoc
  • target.<triple>.linker
  • target.<triple>.runner

@ehuss ehuss added the A-configuration Area: cargo config files and env vars label Jan 30, 2020
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Oh dear this is indeed a bit of a confusing situation now!

As of nowadays I think the current behavior is the best default, but I think it's a good idea to have more configurability here as well. It makes sense that you might want to configure globally a different name, and we could do something like target-dir = "{cwd}/my-name" in terms of configuration.

@klozovin
Copy link
Author

I'd definitely be +1 on having a way to set a global project-relative directory for builds! Having it in ~/.cargo/config seems best. I'm currently setting it via $CARGO_TARGET_DIR but it's finicky - Visual Studio Code picks it up sometimes, depending on the shell it's launched from, etc.

Also, there's an additional issue of cargo clean deleting its configuration if specified from .cargo/config in the project directory. That's definitely a confusing one.

@crncnnr
Copy link

crncnnr commented Jan 30, 2021

I'd like to quickly chime in that I got bitten by this today, especially cargo clean wiping out ~/.cargo, which took me a minute to figure out what I'd done.

I'd assumed setting build.target-dir = ".cargo" in ~/.cargo/config.toml would resolve to whatever workspace root cargo was currently operating in, mirroring Bazel's behaviour.

@epage epage added the S-needs-design Status: Needs someone to work further on the design for the feature or fix. NOT YET accepted. label Nov 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-configuration Area: cargo config files and env vars C-bug Category: bug S-needs-design Status: Needs someone to work further on the design for the feature or fix. NOT YET accepted.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants