Even before the Bcachefs file-system driver was accepted into the mainline kernel, Debian for the past five years has offered a "bcachefs-tools" package to provide the user-space programs to this copy-on-write file-system. It was simple at first when it was simple C code but since the Bcachefs tools transitioned to Rust, it's become an unmaintainable mess for stable-minded distribution vendors. As such the bcachefs-tools package has now been orphaned by Debian.
From John Carter's blog, Orphaning bcachefs-tools in Debian:
"So, back in April the Rust dependencies for bcachefs-tools in Debian didn’t at all match the build requirements. I got some help from the Rust team who says that the common practice is to relax the dependencies of Rust software so that it builds in Debian. So errno, which needed the exact version 0.2, was relaxed so that it could build with version 0.4 in Debian, udev 0.7 was relaxed for 0.8 in Debian, memoffset from 0.8.5 to 0.6.5, paste from 1.0.11 to 1.08 and bindgen from 0.69.9 to 0.66.
I found this a bit disturbing, but it seems that some Rust people have lots of confidence that if something builds, it will run fine. And at least it did build, and the resulting binaries did work, although I’m personally still not very comfortable or confident about this approach (perhaps that might change as I learn more about Rust).
With that in mind, at this point you may wonder how any distribution could sanely package this. The problem is that they can’t. Fedora and other distributions with stable releases take a similar approach to what we’ve done in Debian, while distributions with much more relaxed policies (like Arch) include all the dependencies as they are vendored upstream."
...
With this in mind (not even considering some hostile emails that I recently received from the upstream developer or his public rants on lkml and reddit), I decided to remove bcachefs-tools from Debian completely. Although after discussing this with another DD, I was convinced to orphan it instead, which I have now done.
What are you hinting at regarding this specific news?
This entire thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/sctzes5z3s2zoadzldrpw3yfycauc4kpcsbpidjkrew5hkz7yf@eejp6nunfpin/
tl;dr: bcachefs dev sent in a massive pull request, linus thinks it's too big and touches too much other code for the current state of the release cycle, dev says his filesystem is the future and should just be merged
Which is a completely different issue than what the post is about, hence my question
Wha?
This is exactly what the entire thread is about. Did you not read it?
The OP is about packaging issues with userspace utilities due to version pinning in Rust. It's an issue with Rust in general. Kent is not obligated to lock dependencies in any particular fashion. He could loosen the dependencies, but there is no obligation, and Debian has no obligation to package it.
This is different from the thread you linked in which the bcachefs kernel code and the submission process is discussed, and on which there was a thread here as well in the last days. But your criticism, as valid as it is, only applies there, not in a thread about tooling packaging issue.
No, it's about Bcachefs specifically. It's literally in the title. Discussions around Rust version pinning are a useful side conversation, but that's not what the OP is about.
The title says "bcachefs-tools", the linked kernel thread that the comment referred to was about the bcachefs kernel part and did not touch the bcachefs userspace tools. Debian says they can't package with these pinned dependencies and explains why. Kent says relaxing dependencies breaks the programs.
You must have missed the last half of the post then. Especially the last two paragraphs.
The only hint at the other topic I see is this:
I guess this is about https://www.reddit.com/r/bcachefs/comments/1em2vzf/psa_avoid_debian/, and while I think the title is too broad, the actual message is
I don't consider Kent's reasoning (also further down the thread) a rant - it might not be the most diplomatic, but he's not the only one who has problems with Debian's processes. The xscreensaver developer is another one for similar reasons.
I think, in fairness, bcachefs and Debian currently aren't a good fit. bcachefs is also in the kernel so users can rest it and report, but it wasn't meant to be stable; it's meant to not lose data unrecoverably.
Anyhow, while I think that he's also not the easiest person on the LKML, I don't consider him ranting there; and with the author's and my judgement differing in these points, I'm led to believe that we might also disagree on what qualifies as hostile.
Lastly, while I'm not a big fan of how Rust packaging works, it ensures that the program is built exactly the same on the developer's and other machines (for users and distributors); it is somewhat ironic to see Debian complain about it, since they do understand the importance of reproducibility.
There's isn't much more to that issue than that sentence, while all other paragraphs cover the packaging. It's tangential at best.
What a wonderful story.