An RFC was recently merged to unblock this: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3963

The implementation on this has started.

Something to keep in mind is https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-is-not-a-company/. Rust is mostly driven by volunteers working on what they find interesting. Boring/uninteresting tasks depend on funding, a warm body to accept the funding, and a reviewer.

▲

echelon 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not just that this is boring work, but there's disagreement about Cargo and crates.io's direction. There are a lot of changes people would like to make that get turned down.

Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.

There's a big problem with name squatting, and nothing is being done about this either.

I get that there are more technically important issues around builds and reproducibility and the like, but this is pretty foundational stuff.

	▲	stymaar 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no. They are favorable to crate-name-as-namespace (so that once you have the tokio crate you can use tokio as a namespace) and there's ongoing work on that. But as said above, it takes work to implement. There's no desire for other meaning of the word "namespace" because famously nobody ever made a well-reasoned proposal (despite the amount of social media outrage over the lack of namespace).
	▲	epage 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That and the existing reply are incorrect. Almost everyone has repeated the same superficial requests and design work and not dug into the problems to come up with a proposal that respectfully threads seemingly contradictory requirements (the answer isn't to be dismissive but to step through costs/benefits and explain why a path is justified). https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/survey-of-organizational-o... is a start in just collecting existing knowledge in one place.