Re: maintaining bulk-{small,medium,large}

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

David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:

> It is worse than this. Currently rust is implicitly in bulk-small. I
> think this is a consequence of libimagequant, which is included by
> graphics/gd.

I think rust has to be limited to bulk-large.

> Since there is _definitely_ not room for rust in bulk-small, gd has to
> go. Whether it gets moved to bulk-medium or bulk-large depends on the
> resolution of the above...
>
> (Also, it seems that ninja and meson are already implicitly pulled in
> by bulk-small, so adding them is only regularizing the existing
> situation. And as a consequence, it currently actually has both
> python38 and python310, which is really silly.)

I don't understand why we want these things explicitly so I'm with wiz
here.  I think we should list things people actually want and build
tools get built as needed.

> (However, it seems that cmake is getting pulled in as well, and I
> think that violates the time budget and we need to reconsider whatever
> packages are using it, which I haven't tracked down yet.)

My quick reaction is that cmake is ok in medium and not in small.


Perhaps the 1/8/24 needs to be in VAXmips-hours.  I'm not entirely
kidding, but that is probably not the right unit.  We definitely should
be targetting machines normal people have, not super build boxes.