Re: Dependencies on the rust toolchain

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%mnx.io@localhost>]

* On 2023-06-02 at 13:36 BST, Hauke Fath wrote:

> Given the weight and churn of Rust, I do think we should not blindly
> upgrade utility libraries to Rusted versions, especially when - as in
> this case - there is a non-rust alternative.
>
> I am inclined to make the libimagequant option for graphics/gd
> non-mandatory. And/or package libimagequant v2.

This will always be a bikeshed, and as someone with a focus on using 
binary package repositories where defaults need to cater for the 
majority of the target audience I will always strongly disagree.  

Packages should, in my opinion:

 * Be useful, with most options that affect the functionality of the
   software enabled by default.

 * Use the newest releases of dependencies, rather than being tied to
   older branches that might no longer be maintained.

If people are running on older or limited hardware that is adversely 
affected by the number and size of dependencies, then that's why we have 
package options (which I fully support!) that they can disable in their 
local custom builds.

As for Rust, I personally think it's a really nice language to program 
in with a fantastic developer experience (I'd certainly choose it for 
any new projects), and while that may not be a popular opinion in these 
parts, I think that a lot of upstream developers appear to agree, and I 
believe you are only going to find it harder and harder to avoid it in 
package dependencies as time goes on.

--
Jonathan Perkin   -   mnx.io   -   pkgsrc.smartos.org
Open Source Complete Cloud   www.tritondatacenter.com