Re: Idea for packaging rust apps

["Murilo" <murilo@disroot.org>]

Hi MSavoritias,

> I wanted to ask, are you also aware of the antioxidant effort? 
> https://notabug.org/maximed/cargoless-rust-experiments

I was not aware of it at all, thank you for enlightening me about the 
effort.

> I was wondering of the differences since your build system seems to 
> still be using cargo under the hood instead of rustc.

Yes, you are correct. It really does nothing special except making 
packaging of rust apps for the end user extremely easy. This approach 
still uses the cargo-build-system, it is not a replacement for it, 
thus carrying all the cargo (and cargo-build-system) flaws along with 
it.

The antioxidant-build-system, on the other hand, aims to mainly solve 
the inefficiencies of the cargo-build-system and cargo itself. After 
looking at some mail exchange on the antioxidant effort, it will be 
hopefully much nicer to make rust packages once the rust-build-system 
is merged, and it will be a much better approach for Guix than what I 
am currently suggesting.

I believe my approach with cargo2guix and transitively generating guix 
package definitions from Cargo.lock will mainly target user's Guix 
channels because of the simplicity of the packaging process. While it 
is better than what we currently have on Guix, it is nowhere ideal for 
Guix as the antioxidant effort is, because of CI and the amount of 
packages Guix has.

Thank you once again for making me aware of antioxidant and the future 
rust overhaul on Guix.

--
Best regards,
Murilo