[incepted]

> Something that I'm surprised this page doesn't talk about, and which is very important considering the recent hubbub over left-pad, is that any dependency you get on Cargo can be relied upon to continue to exist forever

Maybe the reason why it's hardly talked about is because it's common sense and pretty much all dependency managers support it?

Except node of course, because they have no idea what they're doing.

[eridius]

Except not all dependency managers support it. I'm not even sure if it's safe to say that a majority of dependency managers support it.

[gnoway]

Package persistence is not really a dependency manager feature though, it's a package repository feature. npm didn't fail; npmjs.com did.

I'm just waiting for this to happen to bower next. AFAIK they're just a registry pointing to github. All it's going to take is someone doing a force push without thinking and we're in this same situation again.

[bulkan]

> Except node of course, because they have no idea what they're doing.

NPM and node are two different things.

[nathancahill]

..his point stands.

[tatterdemalion]

This is incorrect and very rude. Rubygems has also implemented an automated delete feature. Rubygems and NPM have orders of magnitude more users than crates.io; once crates.io approaches that scale the team will have to allow users to delete crates or somehow find funding to field these kinds of support tickets.

[riffraff]

the parent comment might have been worded better, but it has a point, i.e. removing published code generally has to be supported in some way to handle special situations, e.g.

* people publish stuff inadvertently (i.e. private information/keys) * people publish stuff they are not allowed to (i.e. copyright and trademark violations) * people publish stuff you do not want to see published (i.e. stuff related to breaking legal or ethical laws)

It can be argued that users must not do that or that cargo.io doesn't have to oblige, but if they, for example, get a DMCA notice they'll still have to.

[gnoway]

I think the key is that crates.io (and rubygems.org, nuget.org, etc.) as repo owners have to own the removal operation themselves and not delegate that to the package owner/maintainer. The repo owner is better positioned to take package consumers' needs into account and make good decisions about when and how to remove a package.

As far as satisfying support requests: obviously exceptional stuff like DMCA gets handled, but package owners publishing keys, etc. is still their responsibility and shouldn't accelerate or even guarantee removal IMO. If you publish secrets, it's not crates.io's responsibility to help you hide that mistake, and you need to be changing those secrets anyway.

[tatterdemalion]

> I think the key is that crates.io (and rubygems.org, nuget.org, etc.) as repo owners have to own the removal operation themselves and not delegate that to the package owner/maintainer. The repo owner is better positioned to take package consumers' needs into account and make good decisions about when and how to remove a package.

What does this mean? Rubygems and npm both allow a full unpublish, not only a yank. crates.io does not. Rubygems and npm are the same in this regard.

Remember that we are not talking about npm unpublishing someone's library without their approval (that's a different issue), we are talking about npm allowing a user to unpublish a library, which crates.io does not allow a user to do. I will repeat, because people seem not to believe it: rubygems allows this as well, specifically because the maintainers of rubygems could not handle the support tickets that resulted from not providing this feature.

The idea that this is some amateurish aberration from npm is a myth. If Rust is lucky, someday crates.io will have to choose between paying someone to field these tickets or letting users unpublish code.

[riffraff]

the problem with saying "users should not publish their ssh keys" is that they will still do it and ping you with requests to remove them even if you have said it's not possible to do it, causing unnecessary support work.

That is, AFAIU, the reason the rubygems.org maintainers allow it now.

http://blog.rubygems.org/2015/04/13/permadelete-on-yank.html

[gnoway]

Except they even state:

"If you’ve pushed a gem with internal code, you still need to reset API keys, URLs, or anything else sensitive despite the new behavior."

And:

"...we’ve been using an Amazon S3 bucket to store the gems for years now with versioning on - so if someone does remove gems that are necessary, we can easily restore them."

So what they've really done is given developers the illusion that the unwanted gem has been removed, while introducing the ability to break everyone's workflow just like npmjs. In some ways this is worse than before; devs still need to change secrets, and if it's non-secret sensitive code they are concerned about, it's still 'out there' and the dev still has to trust that the rubygems.org people don't do something unwanted with it.

[technomancy]

> If you publish secrets, it's not crates.io's responsibility to help you hide that mistake

If you publish secrets, you're causing crates.io to perform copyright violations. It's not just about helping you hide the mistake, but about helping to stop further violations.

You shouldn't need to resort to a formal DMCA request to stop copyright violations.

[gnoway]

How is publishing a secret (I mean passwords, ssh keys, etc.) a copyright violation?

[technomancy]

Passwords are usually under the complexity threshold of copyrightability, but keypairs aren't.

But secrets can have many other kinds too, like accidentally publishing code which is under a restrictive license.

[tatterdemalion]

How could my comment have been worded better? It is incorrect to claim that npm is alone in allowing automated unpublish, and rude to suggest the reason they allow it is because they do not know what they are doing, when in fact the reason they are doing it is because they have far more users than any other package manager. My comment was completely true and not at all aggressive.