Lib.rs has previously been editorializing the crates within the search algorithm on their site based on their own personal preference. However, they recently have taken it a step too far in labeling the bitcoin repo as unmaintained despite active development taking place for the past several years. Several others have also taken similar actions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the first time this has happened. Notable crate author burntsushi (you know, the one who wrote the regex crate) requested for all of their crates to be removed months ago.

Frankly, I think it's deserved. It really bugs me when people start suggesting lib.rs as an alternative, because it's really not that much better than crates.io and it has the downside of the results being biased.

[–] aloso 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

because it's really not that much better than crates.io and it has the downside of the results being biased.

I use its search, because it produces much better search results. The crates.io search is almost unusable, it rarely finds anything useful in the top search results.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting, I haven't had that same experience, although I confess I haven't used lib.rs much in the last year or so (basically since all of the original drama with crypto stuff). But I've never had many problems with crates.io's search results.

Do you have any examples of lib.rs search finding useful crates that crates.io does not find?