Fix tar by temporarily using a fork

[NobodyXu]

Temporary solution for #177

Signed-off-by: Jiahao XU [email protected]

[passcod]

Mmm we definitely want to publish that to crates. Installing via cargo install cargo-binstall must be preserved! Happy to merge if that's for a starting point and we'll publish/update this later.

[NobodyXu]

Mmm we definitely want to publish that to crates. Installing via cargo install cargo-binstall must be preserved! Happy to merge if that's for a starting point and we'll publish/update this later.

I'm not very familiar with cargo install a crate with git dependency.
Does having a git dependency prevents cargo-install?

Personally I'd like to avoid publishing it as it would be temporary and I don't want it to take up precious name on crates.io, but if cargo install cargo-binstall requires publishing it then I would do it.

[passcod]

We just can't publish to crates if there are non-crates dependencies, that's a registry-wide policy. (The rationale behind it is that the registry is conceptually immutable (you can mark a package as yanked but that doesn't remove it), and git isn't. You must always be able to download a crate and all its dependencies, and that's only possible if all of them are in the registry.)

[NobodyXu]

We just can't publish to crates if there are non-crates dependencies, that's a registry-wide policy. (The rationale behind it is that the registry is conceptually immutable (you can mark a package as yanked but that doesn't remove it), and git isn't. You must always be able to download a crate and all its dependencies, and that's only possible if all of them are in the registry.)

Got it, I would publish it then under the name binstall-tar.

[NobodyXu]

@passcod Done!