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?
IANAL, so I've decided to ask here assuming someone else knows more
about this.
W.
0: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920
1: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
On 22-07-18 12:46 PM, Wolf wrote:
> 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
Might you cite which patches do not follow these categories rather than keeping us in suspense or requiring us to duplicate your research?
Max
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
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 06:46:37PM +0200, 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?> > IANAL, so I've decided to ask here assuming someone else knows more> about this.> > W.> > 0: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920> 1: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/> > -- > There are only two hard things in Computer Science:> cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
From the logo-policy-and-media-guide[1]:
> Please do not approach users of the trademarks with a complaint. That> should be left to the Rust Foundation and its representatives. Thanks!
So these kinds of questions go against the wishes fo the Rust
foundation.
On Mon Jul 18, 2022 at 6:46 PM CEST, 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?
as the foundation says themselves[0], you should ask them, not alpine.
>> Please do not approach users of the trademarks with a complaint. That>> should be left to the Rust Foundation and its representatives. Thanks!
[0]: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/#helping-out>> IANAL, so I've decided to ask here assuming someone else knows more> about this.>> W.>> 0: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013920> 1: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/>> -- > There are only two hard things in Computer Science:> cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
On 2022-07-20 10:41:18 -0500, Ariadne Conill wrote:
> 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
Thank you for the answers and sorry about bringing this up. It is
obvious I was mistaken.
W.
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.