[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Packaging software written in Rust
gus at debian.org
Wed Jul 20 06:12:24 UTC 2016
(Agreed on all counts)
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 at 13:08 Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:32:17PM +0000, Angus Lees wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 at 15:31 Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org>
> > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:57:40PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > I can understand wanting to support local distro patches. We should
> > > very careful doing so, as it seems questionable to patch a crate while
> > > keeping the same version number; that breaks some of Cargo's
> > > about reproducibility. I'd rather have a separate crate and a replace
> > > stanza. However, if we absolutely had to, directory registries seem to
> > > support that.
> > >
> > Remember the *primary* reason we are bothering to do any of this is to be
> > able to support a hypothetical security fix to an existing Rust library
> > package 5 years from now. We *must* be able to rebuild with patches.
> I absolutely agree. I'm just arguing that if we patch version 1.2.3 of
> some crate, the patched version shouldn't use version number 1.2.3; it
> should use, for instance, version 1.2.3+debian1 or similar, to make it
> possible to identify what crate the package built with. (Cargo and
> the Semantic Versioning standard allow that.) Anything that declares a
> dependency on ^1.2, ^1.2.3, ~1.2.3, 1.2.*, or >1.2.3 will still allow
> that. (And we have to rebuild binary crates to pull in the new library
> anyway, whether we change the version number or not.)
> Having a distinct version number when we patch a crate will make it
> feasible to tell when a build actually picks up that patched crate, such
> as in the cargo output in the build log for a bin crate.
Oh, I hadn't thought about propagating the Debian source version into the
library - interesting... That means we'll appear "different" from cargo's
pov even for unmodified crates (1.2.3-4 instead of 1.2.3), but I imagine if
that triggers an issue with an over-strict dependency, then it was an issue
we wanted to fix anyway...
Debian has elsewhere solved the "what build statically linked what" issue
with Built-Using headers in the binary package, fwiw. We should make sure
we properly add these, so the standard tools do the right thing.
> .. or we just patch the Debian version of librust-libgit2-sys-dev's
> > to always use the system version.
> While that's always an option, I'd like to avoid having to repeatedly
> patch each new upstream version of a library if at all possible. (If we
> can get the patch upstream, great, but I'm not wildly hopeful there.)
> That said, see below; I think this is a much less widespread problem
> than I'd first thought.
Applying patches and later re-patching onto a new upstream is what the
Debian toolchain is reasonably good at, for what it's worth. It's what
just about every package does, after all.
Obviously we can explore this further as we gain experience.
> Realistically, we probably want to strip
> > the vendored C sources out of most of the *-sys crates when packaging,
> > since Build-Deps can guarantee the system library is present, and
> > removing the files means we can avoid auditing them for licenses, etc.
> > Many of the other *-sys crates I looked at earlier used pkg-config if
> > available, so using the system library versions Just Worked.
> I took a quick look at a large selection of -sys crates, and as far as I
> can tell, only two (libgit2-sys and one of the readline crates) shipped
> their own copy of the upstream source as part of the .crate, and only
> libgit2-sys required an environment variable to find and use a system
> version by default.
> Given that, I think we could reasonably ask libgit2 to support a
> standard environment variable (like CARGO_USE_SYSTEM_DEPS), set that one
> variable unconditionally, and ask any new crates to support that. I
> think upstream would probably take such a patch.
> I also don't think, for trivial cases like those where the source is
> unlikely to have license problems, that it's worth the trouble of
> patching out the bundled source, compared to the benefit of using an
> unmodified .orig.tar.gz from the .crate file. But on the other hand, it
> also wouldn't be that bad for just those two crates.
I'm glad to hear that vendoring the upstream source is less common than I
Again, we probably want to choose to repack on a case-by-case basis - I
imagine the upstream size and licensing complexity might vary wildly.
Last time I checked there also weren't any signed checksums that we could
use to verify crates.io downloads (other than the implicit HTTPS
signature). It would be nice if we could preserve a bit-for-bit identical
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pkg-rust-maintainers