On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 10:20, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 12:25:16PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:09:21 +0300 (IDT) > > "Etelson, Gregory" <getel...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hello Morten, > > > >> > > > >> Thank you for raising these questions ! > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> Do we want the DPDK project itself to support rust? > > > >>> Or should parts of this be a DPDK hosted project, like grout? > > > >> > > > >> Rust packages management is different. > > > >> Also DPDK Rust code will eventually provide a different API. > > > >> At this stage, DPDK hosted project looks like a good idea. > > > >> > > > > > > > > For ease of use, that would mean hosting a cargo registry, no? > > > > > > > > > > That's correct - cargo registry is the native way. > > > Also we may consider splitting the code between several crates. > > > That approach can provide more flexible way to arrange files. > > > > Talk to Luca. The current rust cargo registry model is causing > > lots of grief for distro's such as Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu and SUSE. > > > > Packaging is always a pain > > Yes, but cargo is just the way the rust ecosystem works right now. If we > want to have DPDK available for rust developers it needs to be accessible > via cargo.
Making DPDK available on it is not an issue - the problems start popping up if it is _used by_ DPDK to pull in dozens of dependencies, as it becomes way, way too hard to manage. If you only use the compiler and the standard library then it's doable
