Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:12:31PM +0200, Tobias Nygren wrote:
>> Following the principle of least astonishment I would like it to
>> be named rust-bin too. The use case is similar to lang/go-bin.
>> I don't mind if the packages conflict so only one of them can be
>> installed. The binary emulation argument doesn't hold up because these
>> packages can, at least in theory, be used on Linux natively where no
>> emulation takes place.
>
> What's there to be astonished by? The functionality is identical.
>
> I'd like `pkgin install rust` to always work, because I think
> that's the least astonishing option. rust-bin can be renamed
> once the most recent NetBSD release can reliably build rust from
> source, if you like. Right now that's not true, so i'd prefer if
> rust-bin can act as a totally invisible drop-in replacement.

I wonder how many people actually want to install rust, rather than
something taht needs rust to build.  It seems the real point is to
enable firefox, librsvg, etc. in the bulk build, not that people want to
install rust and build some rust program of their own from sources.

The real issue is that it seems that you want is in direct conflict with
what other people want, which is that rust (not bin) can be built on a
system that's currently pointed at bin.  At least 3 of us have spoken in
favor of following our norm of -bin suffix for binary programs, and
having bulk builds attempt to build both, so that we can get data for
our get-well plan.

It seems also that rust is building in all the pkgbuild builds on the
last branch.  The issue seems to have been one of MAKE_JOBS_SAFE.  So
perhaps you should be deleting the bin package now.  But I don't mind,
and I think no one else does, if it remains -- as rust-bin -- so that we
could flip it back on if needed.