-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fill the gap between "cargo install" and "cargo build --release" #7309
Comments
It feels like this request went directly to having a particular solution in mind, rather than describing the problem you're trying to solve. Could you please explain what problem you're trying to solve here? |
Sure~ Case 1 When we develop a binary crate for our own use; Case 2 When we use other's binary crate but does some patching and hacking ourselves, we modify the code, run So, the best approach could be copying the built artifacts to that directory. Currently i do this manually, but I wish this could be covered by some use of cargo. |
This is a feature I thought about too and I'd be interested in working on it. Would a new |
You can use the the install subcommand to install a local crate without recompiling it with the
|
I feel like this comment from Huanzo should do the trick. Things need to beware is that There should be nearly no recompile if their compiler flags and the profile matche. Sometimes a mismatch happens though. I would suggest finding what contributes to the mismatch and fix it first. |
Considering that cargo install seems to be able to do the trick, I'm going to close this. If there is a reason for us to reconsider this, let us know! |
Currently we can use "cargo install" to install an executable. And we can use "cargo build" to build the artifact. There should be a third command that deploys the executable artifact to $CARGO_HOME/bin and let cargo install manage them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: