I think you're confused here. You don't need to name the directory github.com/<user>/<repo> at all, this is just an abstracted URL that can be used to fetch a Rustpkg project from Github. More abstracted URLs could be added to fetch projects from other sources.
Honestly, I agree with you. I still prefer requiring a central pkg.rs file with a name, version and author defined. Sure, these can be inferred based on this abstract URL concept, but it's nice having a central metadata file that exists across sources. I'm still cloudy about how versioning is going to be inferred based on branches and I think I will continue to be until it's implemented and working well. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM, SiegeLord <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/27/2013 06:14 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote: > > This does not mean that you must fetch a package named >> "github.com/graydon/foo" from github.com, but it means that if you don't >> have any other source for that package, you can guess at where to get >> it. And it has a unique name (assuming you decide to use that fact). >> > > I have a rust project hosted on github, but the package name is certainly > not github.com/<my_username>/<**repository_name> in my mind. What if it > was hosted on bitbucket? What if I delete the repository? I find it > puzzling to have to place my local repository inside a directory named > github.com/<my_username>/<**repository_name> for me to be able to build > my local copy using rustpkg. > > It's the last bit that bothers me the most: I can't build my local project > unless I introduce a completely irrelevant aspect (my git host and > username) into my metadata (the directory structure). > > > >> This was chosen very carefully, very intentionally, and (for the time >> being) we're not revisiting this choice. We experimented before with >> having multiple points of name-indirection or metadata and it appears to >> have just annoyed and confused everyone. >> > > Most package system I've reviewed prior to writing that email used a > metadata file in its package system. It really is not clear why Rust must > be nearly unique in this point. In the 3 sources of documentation you've > linked to there really wasn't a motivation behind why the widespread > metadata file approach was wrong. > > I understand that this is too late to change this, but at the same time I > find integrating my (sole for now) Rust project into rustpkg to be really > disruptive, relative to simply including a metadata file like I've done for > my projects in other languages. > > -SL > > ______________________________**_________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
