On Tue, Aug 26, 2025, at 1:48 PM, Micha Lenk wrote: > Hi Fabian, > > On 16.08.25 08:40, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> the question how to (potentially) handle Rust crate backporting for >> Trixie came up in the Debian Rust team recently, and we would like to >> have your input! >> >> some background information that might be relevant: >> - Rust executables need to be statically linked >> - there is no stable ABI for linking >> - as a result, Rust "library" packages actually contain source code >> - Rust dependency trees are (quite a bit) larger then C/.. ones >> >> in practice this means that for backporting an application (or shared >> library for consumption via a C-compatible interface) there are two >> options: >> >> A) backport everything >> [...] >> >> B) vendoring >> [...] > > If you ask me, I'd like to ask you to follow approach A. > > Rationale: In the end this is a challenge inherited from the rust eco > system and how it is packaged in Debian. So, making *any* piece of > software available in a Debian release means all the crates it needs > during build need to get packaged first. This is a decision that was > made when uploading things to unstable, and the Debian backports suites > are not the place to change that approach. If you want to change the > approach, I'd kindly ask you to change the approach in unstable/testing > first.
Ack - thanks for your reply! We will try to implement a sensible branching scheme in our monorepo and cautiously proceed with this option then, I think :)
