bug#39640: closed ([PATCH] doc: Document packaging guidelines for Rust crates.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:51:30 +0200
with message-id <20200218075130.GO1968@E5400>
and subject line Re: [bug#39640] [PATCH] doc: Document packaging guidelines for 
Rust crates.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #39640,
regarding [PATCH] doc: Document packaging guidelines for Rust crates.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden.)


-- 
39640: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=39640
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH] doc: Document packaging guidelines for Rust crates.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:21:59 +0200
>
>
>
>
> * doc/contributing.texi (Rust Crates): New section.
> ---
>  doc/contributing.texi | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index c6586a2adf..2fb641f0c5 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ needed is to review and apply the patch.
>  * Python Modules::              A touch of British comedy.
>  * Perl Modules::                Little pearls.
>  * Java Packages::               Coffee break.
> +* Rust Crates::                 Beware of oxidation.
>  * Fonts::                       Fond of fonts.
>  @end menu
>  
> @@ -665,6 +666,39 @@ are also prepended by @code{perl-}.  Such modules tend to 
> have the word
>  prefix.  For instance, @code{libwww-perl} becomes @code{perl-libwww}.
>  
>  
> +@node Rust Crates
> +@subsection Rust Crates
> +
> +@cindex rust
> +Rust programs standing for themselves are named as any other package, using the
> +lowercase upstream name.
> +
> +To prevent namespace collisions we prefix all other rust packages with the
> +@code{rust-} prefix.  The name should be changed to lowercase as appropriate 
> and
> +dashes should remain in place.
> +
> +In the rust ecosystem it is common for multiple incompatable versions of a
> +package to be used at any given time, so all packages should have a versioned
> +suffix.  If a package has passed version 1.0.0 then just the major version
> +number is sufficient (e.g.@: rust-clap-2), otherwise the version suffix should
> +contain the major and minor version (e.g.@: rust-rand-0.6).
> +
> +Because of the difficulty in reusing rust packages as pre-compiled inputs for
> +other packages the @xref{cargo-build-system} presents the @code{#:cargo-inputs}
> +and @code{cargo-development-inputs} keywords as build-system arguments.  It
> +would be helpful to think of these as similar to @code{propagated-inputs} and
> +@code{native-inputs}.  Rust @code{dependencies} and @code{build-dependencies}
> +should go in @code{#:cargo-inputs}, and @code{dev-dependencies} should go in
> +@code{#:cargo-development-inputs}.  If a rust package links to other libraries
> +then the standard placement in @code{inputs} and the like should be used.
> +
> +Care should be taken to ensure the correct version of dependencies are used; to
> +this end we try to refrain from skipping the tests or using 
> @code{#:skip-build?}
> +when possible.  Of course this is not always possible, as the package may be
> +developed for a different Operating System, depend on features from the Nightly
> +Rust compiler, or the test suite may have atrophied since it was released.
> +
> +
>  @node Java Packages
>  @subsection Java Packages
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.0
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#39640] [PATCH] doc: Document packaging guidelines for Rust crates. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:51:30 +0200

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:39:22PM +0100, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > * doc/contributing.texi (Rust Crates): New section.
> 
> Great! Thank you for this clarification.
> 

I realized I had most of it in my head and that wasn't helping anyone

> > +To prevent namespace collisions we prefix all other rust packages with the
> 
> rust -> Rust
> 
> > +In the rust ecosystem it is common for multiple incompatable versions of a
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Also incompatable -> incompatible ?
> 

spelling is hard :)

> > +package to be used at any given time, so all packages should have a 
> > versioned
> > +suffix.  If a package has passed version 1.0.0 then just the major version
> > +number is sufficient (e.g.@: rust-clap-2), otherwise the version suffix 
> > should
> > +contain the major and minor version (e.g.@: rust-rand-0.6).
> 
> Nitpick: should contain both the major...
> 
> But that's just me.
> 
> I would also use @code{rust-clap-2} and @code{rust-rand-0.6}

Both sound good.

> 
> > +Because of the difficulty in reusing rust packages as pre-compiled inputs 
> > for
> 
> rust -> Rust
> 
> > +other packages the @xref{cargo-build-system} presents the 
> > @code{#:cargo-inputs}
> 
> @xref is misused here. It targets references at the beginning of
> a sentence. I.e., it will generate
> 
>   ... other packages the See cargo-build-system presents...
> 
> I suggest the more verbose
> 
>   ... other packages the Cargo build system (@pxref{cargo-build-system}) 
> presents...

pxref turned out to be a bit more complicated than I thought. I got it
referring to Build Systems but not to cargo-build-system inside it.
Since the references to gnu-build-system are similar I figured it was
about the same.

> 
> > +and @code{cargo-development-inputs} keywords as build-system arguments.  It
> 
> build-system or build system?
> 

I've always thought of it as build-system due to the keyword, but 'build
system' would be the correct one.

> > Rust @code{dependencies} and @code{build-dependencies}
> > +should go in @code{#:cargo-inputs}, and @code{dev-dependencies} should go 
> > in
> > +@code{#:cargo-development-inputs}.  If a rust package links to other 
> > libraries
> 
> rust -> Rust
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Goaziou

Thanks for the review!

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---