Skip to content
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

cargo vendor vs cargo package inconsistency #9054

Closed
avindra opened this issue Jan 7, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #9186
Closed

cargo vendor vs cargo package inconsistency #9054

avindra opened this issue Jan 7, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #9186
Labels

Comments

@avindra
Copy link

avindra commented Jan 7, 2021

Problem
When using cargo vendor, I end up with fewer files than expected compared to if I used cargo package
instead.

More specifically, I expected the exclude of Cargo.toml to be handled consistently in the package and vendor commands. For the deno project, the exclusions are listed here (note: there are inverted exclusions too. aka: !somefile = include somefile):

https://github.com/denoland/rusty_v8/blob/54a72d7628028063f82802f11e48c7eac89f96bf/Cargo.toml#L11-L50

I expected the vendor folder to contain a file named .gn, which is required for building the project.

Steps

$ cd path/to/denoland/deno
$ cargo vendor
$ ls  -la ./vendor/rusty_v8/

# The problem here is that we are not seeing .gn,
# and a few other files that are required for the
# deno build. This means the ./vendor cannot be used
# to build.
# 
# But if we "cargo package"
# instead that seems to work.

See the original report to denoland/rusty_v8#566 for more logs and other info.

Possible Solution(s)
Maybe the vendoring and publishing code paths are divergent somewhere?

Notes

Platform info

❯ uname -o
❯ uname -r
❯ cargo version
❯ rustc --version
GNU/Linux
5.10.3-1-default
cargo 1.47.0 (f3c7e066a 2020-08-28)
rustc 1.47.0 (18bf6b4f0 2020-10-07)
@weihanglo
Copy link
Member

Possible fix in #9186

@bors bors closed this as completed in db741ac May 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants