.c and .h is a good enough packaging then, yes.
-
-
Are you just saying Rust can't target FreeBSD?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
It can in the relatively trivial sense of compiling and running, but try getting a Rust library into ports / apt / yum / etc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zofrex
I think that's because of legacy bureaucracy rather than real technical limitations. I'm not saying it's not needed at all, but rather ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
that some crufty ideology around what qualifies as a "well behaved package" is in need of some review.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Perhaps. I think dynamic linking still has its place... It's nice to not recompile the world for the weekly curl CVE!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But regardless of whether the current state of OS packaging is optimal or even correct, Rust did not target how they actually work
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's the social equivalent of targeting a different architecture and asking them to change it
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Changing that legacy bureaucracy will likely be harder than writing stdlib for the OS, imo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zofrex
If that's really true, those organizations are the living dead.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In any event, this is not abstract: this is about what fundamentally amounts to a demand that new langs rush to a stable ABI
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.