Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upProduce packaging guidelines #29563
Comments
brson
added
the
A-docs
label
Nov 4, 2015
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
At what point are we far enough along that I should start work on this? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@brson ping! Have we gotten far enough for me to write these docs yet, and how would I go about finding that information? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
We could probably produce some guidelines now. But it would take some investigation to figure out both what packaging-related features we're providing and what packagers are actually doing in practice, and to make sense of it. It's all pretty fuzzy to me still. I could probably spend a day collecting notes together, then bounce them off our packagers to see if they make sense. Low priority still. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Lots of packaging discussion at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/beta-testing-rustup-rs/3316/188 More Arch Linux specific discussion at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rustup/?comments=all |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I was just asking @brson for a judgement whether it would be kosher for distros to patch 1.15.0 with #39466, changing a public interface. He indicated discomfort. This particular point is moot if there's going to be a 1.15.1 point release, but there's a larger question here. What would the Rust Project find acceptable for downstream builders to change? I'd expect general bug fixing to be allowable, but changing a public interface gets questionable, I agree. Do we need to say anything more than that? Interface questions could also come up if there's ever a separate compiler implemented, say gcc-rust. Of course, the license permits pretty much any change you like, but maybe there's some trademark muscle to flex behind this policy, if needed. Or maybe you just grumble about out-of-spec implementations. |
steveklabnik
added
the
T-doc
label
Mar 10, 2017
steveklabnik
removed
the
A-docs
label
Mar 24, 2017
steveklabnik
added
the
T-infra
label
May 24, 2017
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Triage: tagging as T-infra as well; docs team is happy to help here, but we'd need you all to get a rough draft together. |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
the
C-feature-request
label
Jul 24, 2017
steveklabnik
added
the
P-low
label
Aug 30, 2017
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
tagging as p-low, @rust-lang/infra , let the docs team know when you want to collaborate on this |
brson commentedNov 4, 2015
Summarize what we've learned into some general guidelines for packagers.
Potential topics:
re https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/perfecting-rust-packaging-the-plan/2767