Tracking Issue for --crate-type flag
#10083
Comments
ehuss
added
the
C-tracking-issue
|
I would like to try to add it. Can I claim it? |
|
Sure! I don't think anyone else has expressed interest. Let me know if you have any questions. For handling unstable support, I'm not sure about the best way to pass the information down to the right place. I'm thinking adding another map to |
Add crate type flag to rustc command part of #10083 - Add crate type flag to rustc command - Add tests - Update docs
|
I tried this out in hyper today, and hit errors. Filed #10356 |
|
Is making this feature stable on hold until the cargo team has additional review capacity? If not, what needs to happen to get this over the finish line? I assume we just want to wait to see if anyone runs into more issues, but how long should we wait? |
Yes, I think we need to wait a little longer. |
|
It's been a little over two months since I last asked so I thought I'd poke this issue once more. I took a look at the I asked last time how long the team would like to wait, though I didn't get any answer. I understand if this is something that is more of a gut feeling. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a bother, I know I'm just being impatient. |
|
@ehuss What do you think? Should we stabilize it now? I'm happy to help stabilize it if needed. |
|
Starting the FCP to stabilize @rfcbot fcp merge Docs: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/reference/unstable.html#crate-type |
|
Team member @ehuss has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
removed
the
proposed-final-comment-period
rfcbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
|
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. This will be merged soon. |
Revert "Revert "Allow dynamic linking for iOS/tvOS targets."" This reverts commit 16e10bf (PR rust-lang#77716). The original original PR enabled `cdylib` builds for iOS. However this caused problems because: > This new feature in Rust 1.46 added a lot of headache for iOS builds with cdylib targets. cdylib target is near impossible to build if you are using any crate with native dependencies (ex. openssl, libsodium, zmq). You can't just find .so files for all architectures to perform correct linking. Usual workflow is the following: > > 1. You build staticlib and rely that native dependencies will be linked as frameworks later > 2. You setup right cocoapods in ObjectiveC/Swift wrapper. > > As cargo doesn't support platform-dependent crate types rust-lang#4881 as a result a lot of projects now broken on Rust 1.46 However, this will be soon a thing of the past since 1.64 brings us the long awaited much anticipated `--crate-type` flag. > I see that this got merged recently: rust-lang/cargo#10083. The --crate-type flag will get stabilized in 1.64. In 1.64, you could still get a successful iOS staticlib with cargo build --crate-type=statclib even if the crate has cdylib targets too. If I'm not mistaken, this solves the problem too so this PR could be reverted in 1.64 with relatively little headache. So summing up, I think this PR can be reverted in 1.64. 🤞
Revert "Revert "Allow dynamic linking for iOS/tvOS targets."" This reverts commit 16e10bf (PR rust-lang#77716). The original original PR enabled `cdylib` builds for iOS. However this caused problems because: > This new feature in Rust 1.46 added a lot of headache for iOS builds with cdylib targets. cdylib target is near impossible to build if you are using any crate with native dependencies (ex. openssl, libsodium, zmq). You can't just find .so files for all architectures to perform correct linking. Usual workflow is the following: > > 1. You build staticlib and rely that native dependencies will be linked as frameworks later > 2. You setup right cocoapods in ObjectiveC/Swift wrapper. > > As cargo doesn't support platform-dependent crate types rust-lang#4881 as a result a lot of projects now broken on Rust 1.46 However, this will be soon a thing of the past since 1.64 brings us the long awaited much anticipated `--crate-type` flag. > I see that this got merged recently: rust-lang/cargo#10083. The --crate-type flag will get stabilized in 1.64. In 1.64, you could still get a successful iOS staticlib with cargo build --crate-type=statclib even if the crate has cdylib targets too. If I'm not mistaken, this solves the problem too so this PR could be reverted in 1.64 with relatively little headache. So summing up, I think this PR can be reverted in 1.64. 🤞
Revert "Revert "Allow dynamic linking for iOS/tvOS targets."" This reverts commit 16e10bf (PR rust-lang#77716). The original original PR enabled `cdylib` builds for iOS. However this caused problems because: > This new feature in Rust 1.46 added a lot of headache for iOS builds with cdylib targets. cdylib target is near impossible to build if you are using any crate with native dependencies (ex. openssl, libsodium, zmq). You can't just find .so files for all architectures to perform correct linking. Usual workflow is the following: > > 1. You build staticlib and rely that native dependencies will be linked as frameworks later > 2. You setup right cocoapods in ObjectiveC/Swift wrapper. > > As cargo doesn't support platform-dependent crate types rust-lang#4881 as a result a lot of projects now broken on Rust 1.46 However, this will be soon a thing of the past since 1.64 brings us the long awaited much anticipated `--crate-type` flag. > I see that this got merged recently: rust-lang/cargo#10083. The --crate-type flag will get stabilized in 1.64. In 1.64, you could still get a successful iOS staticlib with cargo build --crate-type=statclib even if the crate has cdylib targets too. If I'm not mistaken, this solves the problem too so this PR could be reverted in 1.64 with relatively little headache. So summing up, I think this PR can be reverted in 1.64. 🤞
Revert "Revert "Allow dynamic linking for iOS/tvOS targets."" This reverts commit 16e10bf (PR rust-lang#77716). The original original PR enabled `cdylib` builds for iOS. However this caused problems because: > This new feature in Rust 1.46 added a lot of headache for iOS builds with cdylib targets. cdylib target is near impossible to build if you are using any crate with native dependencies (ex. openssl, libsodium, zmq). You can't just find .so files for all architectures to perform correct linking. Usual workflow is the following: > > 1. You build staticlib and rely that native dependencies will be linked as frameworks later > 2. You setup right cocoapods in ObjectiveC/Swift wrapper. > > As cargo doesn't support platform-dependent crate types rust-lang#4881 as a result a lot of projects now broken on Rust 1.46 However, this will be soon a thing of the past since 1.64 brings us the long awaited much anticipated `--crate-type` flag. > I see that this got merged recently: rust-lang/cargo#10083. The --crate-type flag will get stabilized in 1.64. In 1.64, you could still get a successful iOS staticlib with cargo build --crate-type=statclib even if the crate has cdylib targets too. If I'm not mistaken, this solves the problem too so this PR could be reverted in 1.64 with relatively little headache. So summing up, I think this PR can be reverted in 1.64. 🤞
Summary
RFC: #3180
Implementation: #10093
Documentation: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/reference/unstable.html#crate-type
This is the tracking issue for RFC 3180 which adds the
--crate-typeargument tocargo rustcto explicitly change the crate type of the crate being built.Unresolved Issues
No response
Future Extensions
No response
About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: