3 ms·

No. 1. Rust is as hostile to dynamic libraries as glibc to static. 2. With everything static you have to rebuild every dependent on any security patch anyways

by rfoo 2y ago

No. 1. Rust is as hostile to dynamic libraries as glibc to static. 2. With everything static you have to rebuild every dependent on any security patch anyways. If you meant with multiple versions maintainers have to backport patches to multiple versions. Maybe don't backport at all? Some people appreciate having backports. Users of software written in Rust does NOT. So why bother doing backports for them? 3. > a library that depends on dependencies A and B, both of which depend on X, can actually work properly This will be detected during compile (since it's all static! sorry dynamic linking fans) and dealt with.

jonhohle 2y ago
Dynamic libraries have had interface versions and linking strategies for decades. For statically compiled apps, if the version is over specified recompiling will have no effect. The dependent will have to be updated with a new version string.
rlpb 2y ago
> This will be detected during compile (since it's all static! sorry dynamic linking fans) and dealt with. If it is correctly detected, then the only "dealing with" that can be done is to fail to build.
tsimionescu 2y ago
> Some people appreciate having backports. Users of software written in Rust does NOT. So why bother doing backports for them? This is completely false. First and foremost, people who use applications don't care at all what language those apps are written in, and there is no "community of people who use Rust tools" that could have a different world-view from everyone else. And beyond that, there is no one in the world who doesn't want backports, because it's never safe to just take the latest version of some piece of software and expect that everything will still work as expected. Having to take even a month of new features just because you need a security fix. And note that Rust even at the language level has strong support for backwards compatibility and support for older versions. It's definitely not true that Rust people, even developers, live at the bleeding edge and don't need backports.

by rfoo 2y ago

jonhohle 2y ago

Dynamic libraries have had interface versions and linking strategies for decades. For statically compiled apps, if the version is over specified recompiling will have no effect. The dependent will have to be updated with a new version string.

rlpb 2y ago

> This will be detected during compile (since it's all static! sorry dynamic linking fans) and dealt with. If it is correctly detected, then the only "dealing with" that can be done is to fail to build.

tsimionescu 2y ago

> Some people appreciate having backports. Users of software written in Rust does NOT. So why bother doing backports for them? This is completely false. First and foremost, people who use applications don't care at all what language those apps are written in, and there is no "community of people who use Rust tools" that could have a different world-view from everyone else. And beyond that, there is no one in the world who doesn't want backports, because it's never safe to just take the latest version of some piece of software and expect that everything will still work as expected. Having to take even a month of new features just because you need a security fix. And note that Rust even at the language level has strong support for backwards compatibility and support for older versions. It's definitely not true that Rust people, even developers, live at the bleeding edge and don't need backports.