Re: rust: NetBSD 9 earmv7, version selection, RUST_TYPE

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

Thomas Klausner <wiz%gatalith.at@localhost> writes:

> Do I understand this correctly, that we should just switch NetBSD 9.x
> earm* to use binary rust, like in the attached diff?
>
> (Then we'd have one rust version on all platforms again, allowing some
> currently stuck package upgrades.)

> @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@
>  .endfor
>  
>  .if ${MACHINE_PLATFORM:MNetBSD-*-earm*} && ${OPSYS_VERSION} < 100000
> -RUST_DIR?=	../../lang/rust176
> +# does not self-host
> +RUST_TYPE=	bin
>  .endif
>  RUST_DIR?=	../../lang/rust
>

Sure, but we should go further:

  Why is this limited to 9?   Can someone with a reasonable computer
  running armv7hf-el on NetBSD 10, like a RPI3 with 1G of RAM, expect
  that lang/rust will build?  I don't think so.

  Why is this limited to NetBSD?  I don't have the impression there's
  anything wrong with NetBSD arm.  Rather, it's that rust is
  fundamentally huge.   Can people running FreeBSD or Linux build
  lang/rust (not install a binary, build) on a machine with 1G of RAM?

so instead (hand edited, note tested!):

>  .if ${MACHINE_PLATFORM:M*-*-earm*}
> -RUST_DIR?=	../../lang/rust176
> +# Building lang/rust requires enormous resources, more than can exist on earm.
> +RUST_TYPE=	bin

I too hoped to hear from he@, but I think we need to get this change in.