namespacing-rfc VS cargo-deny

An RFC for packages as optional namespaces is still open. An implementation of it exists, but might need an older toolchain to build today.

There is work going on to allow crate namespacing (foo/bar): https://github.com/Manishearth/namespacing-rfc/blob/main/000...

A prototype exists for this https://github.com/Manishearth/namespacing-rfc/issues/10

namespaces have not been ruled out, I have a pre-RFC and there's even a prototype implementation out there

Tip: You can check the licenses of all your dependencies (recursively) using cargo-deny: https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/cargo-deny

cargo-deny

cargo-deny can help block specified versions of a crate and even has some advisory features that can probably used to block crate with reported vulnerabilities

cargo deny for fetching crates only from trusted sources, blacklisting crates, etc.

Use cargo audit or cargo deny to check the crates in your Cargo.lock to ensure they don't contain any vulnerabilities.

> Explain the crate scanner thing?

I assume a reference to tools that help manage potential issues around dependencies, e.g.:

* https://github.com/rustsec/rustsec/tree/main/cargo-audit

* https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/cargo-deny

"[cargo-audit] Audit Cargo.lock files for crates with security vulnerabilities reported to the RustSec Advisory Database."

"cargo-deny is a cargo plugin that lets you lint your project's dependency graph to ensure all your dependencies conform to your expectations and requirements." e.g. license, security advisories, source.

cargo-deny does license and security advisory checking, and cargo-geiger does unsafe checking.

cargo-deny

OpenSSL has been banned in our project for a variety of reasons via cargo-deny for around a year and half, it was actually one of the reasons we created it in the first place.