Skip to content
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.

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

Consider publishing to crates.io #11

Open
jhseu opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Consider publishing to crates.io #11

jhseu opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@jhseu
Copy link

jhseu commented Mar 30, 2021

For those of us who prefer to cargo install and build from source rather than using a binary.

@mcginty
Copy link
Collaborator

mcginty commented Apr 2, 2021

Absolutely - I'm planning on doing that after removing our git-based dependencies (crates.io doesn't allow publishing crates with them). Sorry we didn't mention that in the README as something that was in the works.

@mcginty
Copy link
Collaborator

mcginty commented Apr 10, 2021

Note that in the mean time you can checkout the source and run cargo install --path ./client and cargo install --path ./server and it works fine.

@pilik88
Copy link

pilik88 commented Apr 11, 2021 via email

@mediclab
Copy link

Can you update wireguard-control to 1.6.1 on crates.io ?

@strohel strohel changed the title Consider adding to crates.io Consider publishing to crates.io Sep 5, 2024
@strohel
Copy link
Member

strohel commented Sep 5, 2024

Can you update wireguard-control to 1.6.1 on crates.io ?

Sorry this a late reply: I've already done some preparations like #321 and publishing netlink-request to crates.io, but I got stopped by the fact that only @mcginty is the owner of https://crates.io/crates/wireguard-control

Jake, could you please add github:tonarino:engineering (or alternatively select individuals) as co-owners of it? 🙏

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants