Not naming names, but I know several people working to put Crates.io out to pasture.
There's a level of playing nice with them for the time being (eg. build reproducibility), but it's only KTLO.
Crates.io needs to die for Rust to thrive. They're a bungled, mismanaged liability. New code, new leadership.
Once a better alternative is out there, crates.io will either wither and die or improve. If it matches its competition in terms of quality and reliability, everyone is better off. If not, the alternative solution will take over.
I'm eager for this crates.io alternative to land, assuming they don't break too many projects in their improvements.
pub use std::sic::semper; const step_on_snek = false;******* is my password, but you can't see it. Type your password back, and I won't be able to see it. Try it!
hunter2
use::bar; // changing to
use::foo::bar;
I assume the library names that can be overridden in cargo would still be accepted, and then it all gets a little messy. The transition would be very messy.
Still doesn't solve all of the policy problems with namespacing.
What's that? I have scripts that automate publishing of new release of my crates. And I think many projects have.
What they stated was only regarding claiming new ownership over crate names:
> Using an automated tool to claim ownership of a large number of package names is not permitted.
> Using an automated tool to claim ownership of a large number of package names is not permitted.
And
- Hey, I found that someone created crates at a rate of about one every 30 seconds for a period of a week straight.
- That's not sufficient proof of squatting.
Whoever answered that, was either supporting the squatter or explicitly in favor of the practice. I cannot conceive that someone would get that evidence in their hands, and in their right mind think that the claim is bogus. Hell, I'd even be willing to suppress the squatter with evidence of one new crate created every 30 seconds for one hour!
The only reasonable conclusion to make is that they didn't really care. But then don't save face and claim that you do. That's hypocrisy.
I send the analysis to the crates.io team and pointed that they have a no-automation policy.
They told me that it was not sufficient proof that someone was squatting those names. That's my problem with crates.io is that they have a clear policy and they don't enforce it so all the short/easy to remember names for crates are already taken and there is nothing you can do to get it.