Blog Post: No Namespaces in Rust is a Feature

[samsieber]

@dhm

A less obvious definition is that adding new dependencies shouldn’t stop you from compiling already working code. This is a major motivation for the orphan rule (though the orphan rule is more nuanced than that). This is a strike against schemes that encourage multiple distinct crates to have the same default name in code.

Could you expand on this? To me, unless I am missing something (which I may very well be), this "preference" is subjective.

Ok, here are links to the specific comments I was thinking of from members of the crates.io team.

[Pre-RFC]: Packages as Namespaces

Speaking only at a very high level & trying not to get too deep into technical issues (I agree with sgrif’s post in that regard). I think it would be valuable for the registry to somehow enable some kind of very visible shared branding among crates by the same project. I don’t think this has anything to do with squatting per se, though it may eliminate some squatting we see today: for example, some people currently squat obvious names that would be associated with their brand so that other peop…

[Pre-RFC]: Packages as Namespaces

This is my personal opinion. It should not be taken as a statement from the crates.io team, nor does it imply that anybody else on the team shares my opinion. I do not think we can just paper over the naming collision between foo/bar and foo-bar. You mention that we map from underscores to hyphens, but ignore the fact that we very explicitly do not allow two crates that would normalize to the same name to be uploaded. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that this opens up a poten…

pietroalbini

Granted, they mostly say they aren't speaking for the crates team as a whole.