The officially official Devuan Forum!

fredbird67

Member

Registered: 2025-08-28

Posts: 4  

Request: Can we PLEASE fork APT?

As I'm sure y'all have heard, Debian has announced plans to introduce Rust code in APT no earlier than May of 2026, which I VERY bitterly oppose.  Ubuntu has already done this with some of their core utilities, and from what I understand, such a move has, at least so far, proven to be a fiasco.  Not to mention...and I may be a bit fuzzy on the particulars here (some clarification would be helpful here), but from what I understand, Rust's licensing allows it to become controlled by outside entities, which is anathema to the spirit and intent of the GPL and anything open source.  Therefore, could y'all PLEASE fork APT, even if it's nothing more than taking the existing code and preserving it, like, for example, MATE initially was after GNOME 3 came out? #ifitaintbrokedontfixit

Thanx in advance,
Fred

EDX-0

Member

Registered: 2020-12-12

Posts: 167  

Re: Request: Can we PLEASE fork APT?

just to provide more context on the problems you mention:

the licensing is the licensing of the COMPILER, rustc, not the language syntax itself, and yes the license of the compiler does seems a bit in bad faith, but for that there is a project implementing a rust compiler over gcc https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs , it still is a work in progress but the project is already on the stage of compiling the rust stable core library and focusing on increasing coverage of the testsuite.

the ubuntu fiasco with the rust core utilities project, uutils, stems not from the uutils project itself but rather from the ubuntu developers whom decided to ship as default a core utils package whose compatibility level is not just lower than busybox but even right now is not able to pass the gnu coreutils testsuite, so for credit where it is due and blame where it causes shame, this is fault of the ubuntu developers rushing to push a not ready for production package into a "production ready" release as a default core component

that context provided, there is the posibility that the addition of rust into apt could be a very rushed one seeing that the push does come from an ubuntu developer tho beyond that there is nothing else i can comment on a technical level at the time.