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

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

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

(trimming a lot)

> Point for discussion: are these time quotas still reasonable? Does
> anyone have recent data points on how long any of these packages take
> (that is, each whole package set, not the meta-package itself, which
> is ~free) on either fast build machines or slow machines?

No, but let's get data before we really change anything.

> Note that bulk-medium also includes xemacs (via xemacs-packages) and I
> don't propose to change that.

Does anybody use xemacs?  If not, I don't see why we should include it.

> Proposal: take the explicit emacs entry out of bulk-large and change
> bulk-medium to be editors/emacs instead of editors/emacs26.

agreed.

> Proposal: change bulk-small to have python 3.10 and drop explicit
> listing of python in bulk-medium.

Agree with wiz: just depend on the default, and better yet consider
py-certbot and a comment that this forces python.


> 3. Fortran. Currently bulk-small includes f2c as a dep of

Agreed to drop.   medium perhaps should have py-numpy with a comment
that this forces python.

> 4. ghostscript. Currently ghostscript-gpl is in bulk-small and
> ghostscript-agpl is in bulk-medium. While some things that probably
> shouldn't still depend on ghostscript (e.g. ImageMagick, and assorted
> bits of TeX) for the most part its importance as a dep of other things
> has dropped sharply in the past ten years and I don't think it belongs
> in -small any more, especially since it's not that cheap to build. The
> question then is whether we need both copies. I'm inclined to think
> not, but the licensing mess is vexing and not something I really want
> to wade into at the moment.
>
> Proposal: move ghostscript-gpl to bulk-medium. Also drop its deps from
> bulk-small.

The licensing is not actually a mess and not a problem for builds.
ghostscript-gpl is very unmaintained and nobody should ever run it.  It
is only in tree because some people are upset aout ghostscript-agpl.  It
is not part of a default build.

Proposal: put print/ghostscript (not -agpl/-gpl) in medium.   That
respects the mk.conf knobs.

> 5. lcms (not lcms2). Currently bulk-medium has both lcms and lcms2.
> Not that much uses lcms 1 any more, and I think it's reasonable to
> drop it from bulk-medium.
>
> Proposal: drop lcms from bulk-medium.

Agreed.

> 6. Newer build tools. I think ninja and meson should get added to
> bulk-small. This also involves adding py-setuptools, which we should
> probably have in there anyway, and py-expat, which is harmless. All
> of these together are a lot less build than ghostscript-gpl.
>
> Proposal: Add these to bulk-small.

meh, as I tend to want to just have user programs

> 7. Rust. The browser in bulk-medium got changed to arcticfox, which
> apparently doesn't depend on rust, but currently bulk-medium will
> still bring in rust via librsvg, which is listed explicitly, and also
> py-cryptography, which isn't. Rust is basically too big for
> bulk-medium; it alone will take a large fraction of the notional time
> budget, if not all of it. Should all the rust users get punted to
> bulk-large? I'm inclined to think so. Please discuss.

agreed, no rust in medium.

> (If we do punt rust users, I'm also inclined to take some steps to
> crosscheck that rust doesn't creep back in by accident, though I'm not
> sure what. We don't really have a good way to do that.)

Someone(tm) should write a tool that does this, but I think it's "do
pbulk and check".