Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 08:01:06PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 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.

It's a quite a popular programming language.

> 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.

I don't think the norm holds up here, but gathering data does sound
useful (providing people actually read bulk logs...). You're welcome
to rename the package for that reason, but I do think it's regretful
if rust only ends up being available under the rust-bin name.

> 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.

It's been building unreliably. There are remaining unresolved issues.

There's also the matter of the build process for rust actively driving
people towards things like firefox52 on supported platforms.

It's a beast to bootstrap, and I don't think there's any advantage building
it ourselves over letting upstream cross-compile it for us. We're relying
on a difficult to reconstruct binary bootstrapping process regardless.