Received: from mx1.mailbun.net (mx1.mailbun.net [170.39.20.100])
	by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7FDB780DD5
	for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 15:41:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.120] (ip98-188-99-246.tu.ok.cox.net [98.188.99.246])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: ariadne@dereferenced.org)
	by mx1.mailbun.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60A28126B91;
	Wed, 20 Jul 2022 15:41:19 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dereferenced.org;
	s=mailbun; t=1658331679;
	bh=uW6V8aV8MHaMtLessmzA97OC4qMHUkmOUtB6OuKG8TA=;
	h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
	b=M1rJpn8WFeq2r1c1z0VzjH6xwuLwJhm962p1oniBB7Fzd6/pLC2axo9jkkNU6ZlOD
	 STswOrK6ErRO+wZvmsjvhWQvu6jJ2cQZyWkBvIIM7y48Geoo+UbBgxUktFrJp0v0Pm
	 guBQ2qC8Cg8OLkDT20eVAsoIalZI5wX84lnEXB+WH1AhpXtd5IzZrPyW1b09pbrw39
	 1RukEMORG4mumJ9vGH2ID013/us8AucVg20HeZDWHoNkUlQXLHhSkkWu54laTNmnHR
	 4I9rEMathaXVjDOBSB7RdqBsBWMKF+OdCxO+ZGIJg0eEdNJLdZo/+v+SsUu/C/gwK+
	 N52k4BP2cYDvg==
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
To: Wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>
cc: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: Does alpine violate rust's trademark?
In-Reply-To: <YtWObVGbNcr8JkV2@ws>
Message-ID: <2f2a8cf1-627-5fd-c778-2e93d98857fe@dereferenced.org>
References: <YtWObVGbNcr8JkV2@ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022, Wolf wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to inquire about the `community/rust' package. After
> reading this [0] fun debate bug thread over at debian bug tracker, I've
> started to wonder what is the state of this in alpine.
>
> It looks like at least some of the patches in community/rust do not fall
> under any of these categories (from [1]):
>
> - porting the software to a different architecture
> - fixing local paths
> - adding patches that have been released upstream
> - adding patches that have been reported upstream, provided that the
>   patch is removed if it is not accepted upstream
>
> That seems to mean that distributing this package under the name `rust'
> is not really legal.
>
> Was any evaluation of if the trademark is being broken done? Do we want
> to rename `rust' to `totally-not-rust' or something? Do we want to do
> nothing and pretend the problem does not exist?

The Rust patches are necessary to make Rust behave as expected on the 
Alpine system, the Rust developers are aware of them, some of them 
have already been upstreamed over the years, while others are planned to 
eventually be replaced with equivalent upstream work that aligns the 
`-musl` targets, but somebody needs to actually implement the work to 
harmonize the targets, which again, everyone including upstream Rust 
wants[0].

Needless to say, the Rust developers are aware of them and have raised no 
objection to the patches as they are necessary to make things work as 
expected on Alpine.

Ariadne

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/422