That may be true but it doesn't help downstream users know what they're opting into. Knowing that a rust library can use no unsafe code is not the same as knowi

That may be true but it doesn't help downstream users know what they're opting into. Knowing that a rust library can use no unsafe code is not the same as knowing that that library did use no unsafe code, in a similar way to knowing that a C library can be coded with the help of various tools to provide additional safery (in some cases beyond what rust provides natively) is not the same as knowing they did. In other words, that something was written in a specific language is far too coarse and blunt an assessment to really know what you're getting into. Rust libraries may be, in aggregate, far more likely to have additional safety than C libraries because of features rust provides that are generally used, but you can know nothing about the specific relative safety of a single rust library and C library without looking closer, at the code level. Having indicators of exactly that info surfaced in descriptions about libraries would be a major step forward IMO. I think it would also probably immediately benefit rust if it were to happen, as the info would cast many rust libraries in a beneficial light in comparison to others, but to me that's far less important than promoting better practices overall regardless of language by allowing users to better choose between them, regardless of language.