4 ms·

As long as projects are telling people to do it this way, as long as it’s the easiest way to do so, it’s going to happen and keep happening. An RFC doesn’t get

As long as projects are telling people to do it this way, as long as it’s the easiest way to do so, it’s going to happen and keep happening. An RFC doesn’t get to dictate how devs distribute their software nor how users install it. We see time and time again how devs try to tell users how they’re using their software wrong and that never does anyone any good. Face the reality, and try to understand how that happened and what you can do. A “don’t do that” isn’t good enough. FWIW the few rust devs I know do it exactly like this.

stingraycharles 6y ago
Do keep in mind that this kind of thinking is kind of self-reinforcing; by using cargo to distribute software, you'll keep a certain group of users outside of your ecosystem, thus never seeing complaints. I, for one, cannot install this on the latest Debian Stable, I'm getting 'failed to parse Cargo.lock file' errors with cargo. So since there's no other way for me to install this or try this out, that's it. Now I could probably install a more recent cargo version, but really, should I have to? I'm not a rust dev at all, and it seems like a high tax to pay for installing a tool I don't even know I will really use. I'll also know that raising a support issue about this would come off as entitled, and I'm not too familiar with Rust's ecosystem so I don't know if I step on anyone's toes, so I won't do it.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  This is exactly why the discussion linked above happened, and why the RFC text still does say > It is expected that all major Rust projects will still invest effort into distribution through standard package managers, and Cargo will certainly have room to help out with this, but it doesn't obsolete the need for cargo install. If you're not a Rust developer, expecting you to have cargo and the right toolchain installed is too high a burden.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  > Now I could probably install a more recent cargo version, but really, should I have to? You don’t have to: You always have the option of not using the tool. It’s provided for free, and it’s not reasonable to expect it to be appropriate for everyone (or really anyone except the developer). If their chosen installation method makes it unsuitable for you, so be it. (NB: I am not affiliated with and do not speak for this project)
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    Sorry if the choice of words was inappropriate, I agree that “should i have to” is not correct. I do not want to put a burden on any developer who puts their work out for free, I was merely trying to discuss the dynamics of what’s happening here. I specifically stated that I do not want to raise any issues as that would be entitled behavior.

stingraycharles 6y ago

Do keep in mind that this kind of thinking is kind of self-reinforcing; by using cargo to distribute software, you'll keep a certain group of users outside of your ecosystem, thus never seeing complaints. I, for one, cannot install this on the latest Debian Stable, I'm getting 'failed to parse Cargo.lock file' errors with cargo. So since there's no other way for me to install this or try this out, that's it. Now I could probably install a more recent cargo version, but really, should I have to? I'm not a rust dev at all, and it seems like a high tax to pay for installing a tool I don't even know I will really use. I'll also know that raising a support issue about this would come off as entitled, and I'm not too familiar with Rust's ecosystem so I don't know if I step on anyone's toes, so I won't do it.

steveklabnik 6y ago
This is exactly why the discussion linked above happened, and why the RFC text still does say > It is expected that all major Rust projects will still invest effort into distribution through standard package managers, and Cargo will certainly have room to help out with this, but it doesn't obsolete the need for cargo install. If you're not a Rust developer, expecting you to have cargo and the right toolchain installed is too high a burden.
kd5bjo 6y ago
> Now I could probably install a more recent cargo version, but really, should I have to? You don’t have to: You always have the option of not using the tool. It’s provided for free, and it’s not reasonable to expect it to be appropriate for everyone (or really anyone except the developer). If their chosen installation method makes it unsuitable for you, so be it. (NB: I am not affiliated with and do not speak for this project)
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  Sorry if the choice of words was inappropriate, I agree that “should i have to” is not correct. I do not want to put a burden on any developer who puts their work out for free, I was merely trying to discuss the dynamics of what’s happening here. I specifically stated that I do not want to raise any issues as that would be entitled behavior.