Skip to content

Fix typo in inside-rust/2024-06-19-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.80.md #1345

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 20, 2024
Merged

Fix typo in inside-rust/2024-06-19-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.80.md #1345

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion posts/inside-rust/2024-06-19-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.80.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ While `build.rs.output` might have helped with check-cfg before we added lint co
it seems pretty rare that it would be of use.

Embedding rust source in the manifest would allow a cargo-script to have a `build.rs`.
While having a fully separate `-sys` package is reaosnable for general cases, there can be one-off "I just want a lib for a little bit" use cases.
While having a fully separate `-sys` package is reasonable for general cases, there can be one-off "I just want a lib for a little bit" use cases.
We had previously decided that embedding other content in a cargo-script (build script, config, proc-macros, addition source and packages),
was an anti-feature and we'd need to revisit a lot more than just this.
Instead, we would want to encourage multi-file packages in these cases.
Expand Down