You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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):
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.
Problem
When using
cargo vendor
, I end up with fewer files than expected compared to if I usedcargo package
instead.
More specifically, I expected the
exclude
ofCargo.toml
to be handled consistently in thepackage
andvendor
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
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: