Re: Rust packaging approaches workship, Debconf in Brest [and 1 more messages]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, at 7:24 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Hi. I wanted to reply to these two messages together.
>
> Fabian Grünbichler writes ("Re: Rust packaging approaches workship,
> Debconf in Brest"):
>> I have considered submitting a "Rust Packaging 101" talk (from the
>> team and toolchain packaging perspective, [...]
>
> If you think that would be useful, you should certainly do it.
>
> Personally, as you may know I find the Rust Team workflow (that you'll
> be describing) quite awkward, but that certainly shouldn't be any
> barrier to you presenting the current state of the art.
I've submitted a proposal, covering both the toolchain and the Rust crate
packaging part (with a focus on, but not limited to the debcargo-based
workflow) :)
Relevant part of the proposal:
> This talks aims to give a (brief) tour over the following topics:
>
> The (rustc) toolchain itself: how are the Rust toolchain and its components structured and developed? Where/how does it work differently compared to the GNU one? Which parts are currently packaged, which are not - and what obstacles need to be overcome as part of that packaging effort? Which alternatives to rustc+LLVM exist, and what state are they in?
>
> A short overview of the different approaches taken by the Rust team and other maintainers packaging Rust software in Debian, and the “clash of cultures” between classical packaging and distros and the Rust ecosystem.
>
> The components of the Rust team packaging work flow, how they interact, and when to use each one if you want to/need to package something (partly) written in Rust.
>
> Which open questions and issues exist, and what the future might bring for them.
So I'd say there is some overlap, but enough of a difference to hopefully
make both worthwhile.
Reply to: