% cargo check
extra arguments to `rustc` can only be passed to one target, consider filtering
the package by passing e.g. `--lib` or `--bin NAME` to specify a single target

Isn't there any way to support both [[bin]] and [lib] in one go? cargo build just works, so I'd expect cargo check to be drop-in replacement.

A few of my packages provide more than output, i.e., a library and potentially multiple binaries. However in that case, cargo rustc requires that you specify which result it should build using either --lib or --bin NAME.

https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/cargo-check-git/

You should disable the compilation of main during the tests using #[cfg(not(test))] to remove the warning. And you should put the tests in a module, see http://doc.rust-lang.org/book/testing.html.

After installing cargo-check, when I try to use it, I get the following error:

$ PATH=$HOME/r/.cargo/bin:$PATH cargo check
error: extra arguments to `rustc` can only be passed to one target, consider filtering
the package by passing e.g. `--lib` or `--bin NAME` to specify a single target
error: third party subcommand `cargo-check` exited unsuccessfully

To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

This is with

$ rustc --version
rustc 1.9.0-beta.1 (37a2869af 2016-04-12)

but I already saw this with the 1.8 betas.

After having had a short look at cargo-check, I immediately found it incredibly useful. While staring at the code, I made some improvements that might be more idiomatic Rust. It's quite amazing how much simpler the tests have become now.

As I am still a beginner, please be sure to review the code thoroughly. At least it works both when testing automatically and manually.

Cheers

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 cargo-check Developers
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0, <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://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 OR 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.

• [x] @Byron
• [x] @rsolomo

Hi there, I'm using cargo check in combination with cargo watch. In this combination, wouldn't it be cool if the watcher in the background would notify you if your crate no longer would compile? At least I liked that idea :smile: So I added a feature which enables desktop notifications (only on linux so far).

What do you think?

The version flag makes it possible to distinguish capabilities when using the tool from other places. The fix for cargo metadata is to avoid getting a nasty stack trace when invoking the tool from a folder that isn't a cargo project.

See discussion in #13 for details.

I also cleaned up some code, removed some tests in favor of actually testing compilation of broken crates. Diff of src/main.rs is +18 -59, major additions are the new tests. Please test this out manually once before merging!

(I will be submitting another PR to enable checking of benches and tests that are in their own files instead of being in the lib or bin. I didn't want to add too many things to one PR.)

cc @euclio

This pull request was automatically generated because my scripts detected that everyone in the relicensing issue agreed to relicensing.

License headers in files were not updated, if they exist. I've reproduced an example license header below if you want to copy-paste it in. If you don't have license headers, don't feel compelled to add them.

// Copyright 2016 cargo-check Developers
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0, <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://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.

I recommend publishing a new patch version (the z in x.y.z) so that the metadata propagates to crates.io.

Please be sure to check the README.md for style. I've try to review these PRs as they go out, but I might miss something.

Thanks for relicensing!

(For my bookkeeping: this is repository id cargo-check-8bf7908f-512e-440b-b772-fc185bc1ec58)

Just installed Rust, Cargo, etc. the other day, and getting this error when running cargo-check

`error: the option 'Z' is only accepted on the nightly compiler

error: Could not compile 'helloworld'.`

I was write some code and iteratively running cargo check when my computer crashed. Upon restarting, running cargo check gave:

error: An unknown error occurred

To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

cargo check --verbose gave:

error: dep-info not in an understood format: /home/isaac/prog/rust/text/target/debug/.fingerprint/text-9ae3aaa45655e90e/dep-bin-text-9ae3aaa45655e90e

The contents of the aforementioned file are:

/home/isaac/prog/rust/text/target/debug/deps/text-9ae3aaa45655e90e.rmeta: src/main.rs

/home/isaac/prog/rust/text/target/debug/deps/text-9ae3aaa45655e90e.d: src/main.rs

src/main.rs:

Notably, running cargo rustc -- -Zno-trans works without error as expected.

I have a binary crate with a workspace section with one member pointing to a library crate like here

cargo rustc -- -Zno-trans works fine cargo check prints error: no library targets found

I get the following:

warning: function is never used: `main`, #[warn(dead_code)] on by default
  --> src/bin/alt.rs:17:1
   |
17 | fn main() {
   | ^

This is wrong, correct?

Hi, in https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/3296 we've implemented a cargo check sub-command as part of Cargo. The advantage that has over this plugin is that it uses the stable rustc feature --crate-type metadata rather than -Zno-trans, it does no code gen wherever possible for dependent crates as well as the primary crate, and it can handle plugins and build scripts (and their dependencies) by generating code for these crates only.

If you have any feedback on that PR it would be appreciated!

Unfortunately, this plugin won't be able to use the check name because Cargo sub-commands get prioritised. I'd be interested to hear if there are niches where the plugin is still useful, and if we can do anything to help you there, please let us know.