[Pkg-rust-maintainers] debcargo bin packages FTBFS because they need dev-dependencies

[Angus Lees]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 02:56 Ximin Luo <infinity0 at debian.org> wrote:

> I'm also considering passing --all-features to `cargo install` in
> dh-cargo, does that seem like a good idea too? Or perhaps we could generate
> two binary packages, one with default features and one with all features.
>

My opinion: I think we need to handle features case-by-case as part of the
debian packaging of a particular crate, and we should default to the
upstream crate's default.

"Features" in cargo are a conditional-compilation directive, and I think
it's incorrect to say "all features" == "better".  In most cases I think
we'll want to go with the upstream's default unless we have particular
needs (a common case might be enabling off-by-default SSL support, because
we're happy to require the extra build-dependencies to get privacy).

 - Gus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-rust-maintainers/attachments/20180131/df4ae473/attachment.html>