Hi! In my project (C++ currently) I am using yaml as configuration format and it is critical to be able to locate position of data that does not pass validation. I noticed rust event structs do not inherit positional information from c structs. May be to add it? I would implement structural parser once done, i.e. parser which expects some predifined structure on yaml data.

Signed-off-by: Alberto Corona [email protected]

Having the package name different from the repo name is rather confusing. Took me a bit to figure out why this wasn't being downloaded as a dependency in my Cargo.toml

Heya,

I'm just learning rust, so i'm not sure if this is the best way. On my system (OSX 10.10) the package manager homebrew installs libyaml under /usr/local/ which isn't picked up by the codegen compile so this just allows me to pass an env var to get it to compile.

LIBYAML_CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include cargo build

79ed38c8041ce14564e6cc5a22468000e60aeb60 (v0.0.10) fails with:

src/constructor.rs:128:9: 128:19 error: mismatched types:
 expected `core::result::Result<_, _>`,
    found `core::option::Option<_>`
(expected enum `core::result::Result`,
    found enum `core::option::Option`) [E0308]
src/constructor.rs:128         Some(code) if rep.len() == expected_len => char::from_u32(code),
                               ^~~~~~~~~~
error: aborting due to previous error
Could not compile `yaml`.

The first commit allows libyaml 0.2 to be used in addition to 0.1. This only affects the tests. As far as I can see, the libyaml 0.2 API is compatible to the degree that is used in this crate.

When working on Debian packaging, a small bug showed preventing builds on architectures which use u8 as c_char. https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=rust-yaml&arch=arm64&ver=0.3.0-1&stamp=1539200882&raw=0 shows one of the failed builds. This is fixed in the second commit.

Hi I'm getting this: https://scr.hu/22On13v when trying to build project with this dependency on Rust 1.31.0-Nightly, Windows 10 Home x64, 8GB RAM, AMD A10 9600p, Laptop. Please Help.

This issue was automatically generated. Feel free to close without ceremony if you do not agree with re-licensing or if it is not possible for other reasons. Respond to @cmr with any questions or concerns, or pop over to #rust-offtopic on IRC to discuss.

You're receiving this because someone (perhaps the project maintainer) published a crates.io package with the license as "MIT" xor "Apache-2.0" and the repository field pointing here.

TL;DR the Rust ecosystem is largely Apache-2.0. Being available under that license is good for interoperation. The MIT license as an add-on can be nice for GPLv2 projects to use your code.

Why?

The MIT license requires reproducing countless copies of the same copyright header with different names in the copyright field, for every MIT library in use. The Apache license does not have this drawback. However, this is not the primary motivation for me creating these issues. The Apache license also has protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However, the Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2. This is why Rust is dual-licensed as MIT/Apache (the "primary" license being Apache, MIT only for GPLv2 compat), and doing so would be wise for this project. This also makes this crate suitable for inclusion and unrestricted sharing in the Rust standard distribution and other projects using dual MIT/Apache, such as my personal ulterior motive, the Robigalia project.

Some ask, "Does this really apply to binary redistributions? Does MIT really require reproducing the whole thing?" I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice, but some Google Android apps include open source attributions using this interpretation. Others also agree with it. But, again, the copyright notice redistribution is not the primary motivation for the dual-licensing. It's stronger protections to licensees and better interoperation with the wider Rust ecosystem.

How?

To do this, get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work (as not all contributions qualify for copyright, due to not being a "creative work", e.g. a typo fix) and then add the following to your README:

## License

Licensed under either of

 * Apache License, Version 2.0 ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
 * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)

at your option.

### Contribution

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted
for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.

and in your license headers, if you have them, use the following boilerplate (based on that used in Rust):

// Copyright 2016 libyaml-rust developers
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed
// except according to those terms.

It's commonly asked whether license headers are required. I'm not comfortable making an official recommendation either way, but the Apache license recommends it in their appendix on how to use the license.

Be sure to add the relevant LICENSE-{MIT,APACHE} files. You can copy these from the Rust repo for a plain-text version.

And don't forget to update the license metadata in your Cargo.toml to:

license = "MIT/Apache-2.0"

I'll be going through projects which agree to be relicensed and have approval by the necessary contributors and doing this changes, so feel free to leave the heavy lifting to me!

Contributor checkoff

To agree to relicensing, comment with :

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Or, if you're a contributor, you can check the box in this repo next to your name. My scripts will pick this exact phrase up and check your checkbox, but I'll come through and manually review this issue later as well.

• [ ] @kimhyunkang
• [ ] @kevinmehall
• [ ] @aktowns
• [ ] @JeanDenisVIDOT