On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 16:46:44 +0200
Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 04:36:34PM +0300, Gleb Popov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 4:19 PM Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am sorry but I do not understand, you are basically
> > > re-inventing `pkg install rust`, but from within a port, it makes
> > > little sense.
> >
> > It makes sense for Poudriere users that often have to recompile
> > lang/rust, but would like to avoid that.
>
> Well, I'm not sure this needs to be spelled out, but, well, people who
> decide to build their own ports have to, well, build their own ports.
>
> If they don't want to build their own ports, they should be using the
> packages we provide, or at least use the poudriere option that will
> fetch the packages instead of building them.
>
> But adding binary packages to the ports tree makes absolutely no
> sense.
>
What usually happens to me is:
1. Work on a larger port change for a while
2. Test it manually to make sure all is good
3. Run poudriere testport -b latest ...
4. curl or rust got bumped and no packages are available yet
5. Wait for a couple of hours / call it a day or hack the ports tree
I for one wouldn't install a rust-bin port though, as I'm not
comfortable pulling in mission-critical software that way.
Some people suggested creating a stripped down rust port - this will
certainly help with "pkg install", but won't reduce build times
significantly.
Maybe a "compilers only" repository, which builds expensive base
ports that actually help when using the "-b" option with low
latency/at a high frequency, could help (cmake, rust, llvm...). This
could either be used as a multirepo (with associated problems) or as
the sole repo to the "-b" option.
Not sure if this makes sense for the project, but I'll put this on my
list of things to play with.
Best
Michael
--
Michael Gmelin
