Something to keep in mind is https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-is-not-a-company/. Rust is mostly driven by volunteers working on what they find interesting. Boring/uninteresting tasks depend on funding, a warm body to accept the funding, and a reviewer.
It's not just that this is boring work, but there's disagreement about Cargo and crates.io's direction. There are a lot of changes people would like to make that get turned down.
Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.
There's a big problem with name squatting, and nothing is being done about this either.
I get that there are more technically important issues around builds and reproducibility and the like, but this is pretty foundational stuff.
> Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.
They are favorable to crate-name-as-namespace (so that once you have the tokio crate you can use tokio as a namespace) and there's ongoing work on that. But as said above, it takes work to implement.
There's no desire for other meaning of the word "namespace" because famously nobody ever made a well-reasoned proposal (despite the amount of social media outrage over the lack of namespace).
The longer I go the more I have actually come to appreciate the way Packagist works for the PHP community, there are lots of cool things it does that I wish NPM or other registries did by default, like forcing you to package from a source repository, so that you can't upload a different artifact from what you keep in source control.
TL;DR: They want to fix this, it's a lot of work that no one's being paid to do, there's a roadmap with specific tasks that need doing, volunteer contributions are welcome.
10 years ago, GitHub had a far better reputation and the Rust ecosystem was much smaller and less load-bearing, so "what if someone doesn't have a GitHub account" was a theoretical concern for most people. So the issue was a low-priority backlog item that everyone agreed would be nice-to-have but there weren't enough people willing to volunteer their time to it over more important and more impactful work.
Obviously, the situation has changed in recent years, so it's now considered a much higher priority by many people and some of them are actively working on it. But it's a lot of work to be done by volunteers, so it takes time.
That's the reality of open-source projects: things get done when they are important enough to motivate someone to either fund it or work on in their free time, not according to idyllic roadmaps and schedules.
The reason people were sounding the alarm 10 years ago is because if you tie yourself to a proprietary platform then you're at its mercy, even if it changes for the worse for everyone which is what we're seeing now.
> it's a lot of work that no one's being paid to do,
aren't they like some kind of non-profit (in the legal sense) that is still able to take a lot of money (from players like Google and Co, to justify fixing this), as opposed to ... say the Zig foundation, ... that is is also "non-profit" but can't get money the same way?
The non-profit (the Foundation) pays for specific things but it is not really there to hire people to work on things. It pays for infrastructure work and to pay the existing maintainers who often do review work. It also gives stipends to up-and-coming contributors for Open Source outreach programmes, but this are not really the people who you want to have immediately work on your critical infrastructure code.
The teams support may be a bit trickier/less clear to move on, but generally: this feels like a great place where atproto / bluesky support would slot in well.
Using crates.io is entirely optional, you can download a library's source code and specify the path to it in your cargo config file. (Which is not uncommon in production)
For that matter, using cargo is optional, you can compile rust code using GNU make or shell scripts if you want to. (That's what the Linux kernel does)
An RFC was recently merged to unblock this: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3963
The implementation on this has started.
Something to keep in mind is https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-is-not-a-company/. Rust is mostly driven by volunteers working on what they find interesting. Boring/uninteresting tasks depend on funding, a warm body to accept the funding, and a reviewer.
It's not just that this is boring work, but there's disagreement about Cargo and crates.io's direction. There are a lot of changes people would like to make that get turned down.
Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.
There's a big problem with name squatting, and nothing is being done about this either.
I get that there are more technically important issues around builds and reproducibility and the like, but this is pretty foundational stuff.
> Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.
They are favorable to crate-name-as-namespace (so that once you have the tokio crate you can use tokio as a namespace) and there's ongoing work on that. But as said above, it takes work to implement.
There's no desire for other meaning of the word "namespace" because famously nobody ever made a well-reasoned proposal (despite the amount of social media outrage over the lack of namespace).
The longer I go the more I have actually come to appreciate the way Packagist works for the PHP community, there are lots of cool things it does that I wish NPM or other registries did by default, like forcing you to package from a source repository, so that you can't upload a different artifact from what you keep in source control.
See the official project issue on this: https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io/issues/326
TL;DR: They want to fix this, it's a lot of work that no one's being paid to do, there's a roadmap with specific tasks that need doing, volunteer contributions are welcome.
Just going to say it out loud :) Its been known for 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
10 years ago, GitHub had a far better reputation and the Rust ecosystem was much smaller and less load-bearing, so "what if someone doesn't have a GitHub account" was a theoretical concern for most people. So the issue was a low-priority backlog item that everyone agreed would be nice-to-have but there weren't enough people willing to volunteer their time to it over more important and more impactful work.
Obviously, the situation has changed in recent years, so it's now considered a much higher priority by many people and some of them are actively working on it. But it's a lot of work to be done by volunteers, so it takes time.
That's the reality of open-source projects: things get done when they are important enough to motivate someone to either fund it or work on in their free time, not according to idyllic roadmaps and schedules.
The reason people were sounding the alarm 10 years ago is because if you tie yourself to a proprietary platform then you're at its mercy, even if it changes for the worse for everyone which is what we're seeing now.
Wow, have you forgotten? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
10 (edit: 8) years ago MS took over Github. The writing was on the wall then...
No need to explain OSS to me, I maintain and contribute.
crates.io was started long before the GitHub acquisition.
Yes, and your point?
Pro tip: Using "load-bearing" is heavily associated with LLM usage :)
You could say it’s the real smoking gun. With significant blast radius.
Pangram says human: https://www.pangram.com/history/208879e5-8510-479a-b96c-a20f...
This is where I would insert the Little Britain "Computer says no" meme.
Counterargument: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
> it's a lot of work that no one's being paid to do,
aren't they like some kind of non-profit (in the legal sense) that is still able to take a lot of money (from players like Google and Co, to justify fixing this), as opposed to ... say the Zig foundation, ... that is is also "non-profit" but can't get money the same way?
The non-profit (the Foundation) pays for specific things but it is not really there to hire people to work on things. It pays for infrastructure work and to pay the existing maintainers who often do review work. It also gives stipends to up-and-coming contributors for Open Source outreach programmes, but this are not really the people who you want to have immediately work on your critical infrastructure code.
Welcome to Golang packaging problems. Hope you get it sorted out
Especially not now, what if they're down? ;)
This is a big issue. https://janetdocs.org/ handles auth through GH which leads to... regular problems, unfortunately. I hope to migrate soon.
Sadly, that's probably correct. No outside single point of failure that can cancel users at will can be allowed to gatekeep open source projects.
The teams support may be a bit trickier/less clear to move on, but generally: this feels like a great place where atproto / bluesky support would slot in well.
Aka one of the many Rust reasons why I chose to learn C.
Using crates.io is entirely optional, you can download a library's source code and specify the path to it in your cargo config file. (Which is not uncommon in production)
For that matter, using cargo is optional, you can compile rust code using GNU make or shell scripts if you want to. (That's what the Linux kernel does)