0.5.0 (older version)
From kornelski/crev-proofs copy of git.savannah.gnu.org.
These reviews are from cargo-vet. To add your review, set up cargo-vet and submit your URL to its registry.
The current version of rctree is 0.6.0.
0.3.3 (older version)
From kornelski/crev-proofs copy of salsa.debian.org.
Packaged for Debian (stable). Changelog:
- Package rctree 0.3.3 from crates.io using debcargo 2.4.3
cargo-vet does not verify reviewers' identity. You have to fully trust the source the audits are from.
- unknown
-
May have been packaged automatically without a review
- safe-to-run
-
This crate can be compiled, run, and tested on a local workstation or in controlled automation without surprising consequences. More…
This review is from Crev, a distributed system for code reviews. To add your review, set up cargo-crev.
The current version of rctree is 0.6.0.
0.3.3 (older version) Thoroughness: Low Understanding: Medium
by lo48576 on 2019-08-30
It is completely written in safe Rust, and I didn't find any malicious code.
I've found a minor issue and a non-obvious behavior which is not documented (yet), but I think they are not severe and they have very easy workarounds. You can see https://github.com/RazrFalcon/rctree/issues if you want to know them.
In conclusion, I think this crate is safe to use.
Lib.rs has been able to verify that all files in the crate's tarball are in the crate's repository with a git tag matching the version. Please note that this check is still in beta, and absence of this confirmation does not mean that the files don't match.
Crates in the crates.io registry are tarball snapshots uploaded by crates' publishers. The registry is not using crates' git repositories, so there is a possibility that published crates have a misleading repository URL, or contain different code from the code in the repository.
To review the actual code of the crate, it's best to use cargo crev open rctree. Alternatively, you can download the tarball of rctree v0.6.0 or view the source online.
Packaged for Guix (crates-io)