Fabio Valentini wrote:
Do you have suggestions for improving this situation? I think
we're
pretty close to doing the best we can with packaging Rust projects,
given the current limitations of the language (i.e. the support for
building "true shared Rust libraries" is still very limited and
unstable; but that might improve in the future).
Building true shared libraries is pretty much a prerequisite for any sane
form of packaging.
Additionally, the way the Sequoia GPG backend for RPM is
implemented,
it's actually shipped as a standard shared library with a C ABI and
accompanying C headers (which are binary compatible with the existing
in-house GPG backend code in RPM). No Rust code will be statically
linked into /usr/bin/rpm.
That at least makes sense. (Though I assume that that C-style .so still
internally depends on a whole bunch of Rust crates that are statically
compiled and linked into the .so, does it not?)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Rust is here to stay, whether
you
like it or not.
For example, it's been voted the "most loved" and "most wanted"
language for a few years in a row in Stack Overflow's surveys:
https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#technology-most-loved-dreaded-and-w...
And according to the same statistics, the majority of developers runs
Windows, yet hopefully you do not propose that Fedora ship Windows…
We need to ship what we can reasonably ship, not what the (relative)
majority of developers in the world (most of whom do not even run Fedora)
happens to prefer.
Kevin Kofler