[Bug 266571] Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266571 Nuno Teixeira changed: What|Removed |Added Status|New |Closed Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Nuno Teixeira --- Hello all, Just noticed that Makefile.crates was added to Porter's Handbook: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#using-cargo Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 266571] Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266571 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Kortkamp --- (In reply to Tobias Kortkamp from comment #2) FWIW, branch with cargo.mk that seeds CARGO_CRATES from distinfo: https://codeberg.org/tobik/freebsd-ports/commits/branch/no-CARGO_CRATES -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 266571] Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266571 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Kortkamp --- My 2 cents: - Document Makefile.crates as a possible location but leave it up to the maintainer where to put CARGO_CRATES - It should be documented explicitly that CARGO_CRATES in Makefile is fine too. Don't make this a review issue plz. - Independent of where CARGO_CRATES is stored, updating it can be done automatically with cargo-crates-merge if portfmt is installed I feel like you don't gain anything by declaring that CARGO_CRATES must be in Makefile.crates instead of Makefile. What's needed is a technical USES=cargo change along the lines of either - keep current approach but seed most of CARGO_CRATES from distinfo (since we currently have duplication of the same information for normal crates). Then most ports won't need to set CARGO_CRATES explicitly anywhere. - properly hook crates to the dependency graph as build inputs (as ports that do not create packages to allow reuse of their WRKSRC in USES=cargo via something like BUILD_DEPENDS=rust-crates.io-libc>0:devel/rust-crates.io-libc:patch). Basically adopt a similar approach like GNU Guix cargo-build-system with the extra bonus of removing most of the duplicated crate versions we currently have (how many libc crate version do we really need???) and will allow us to deal with the many vulnerable crates in the tree in a comprehensive way just like normal dependencies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 266571] Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266571 Daniel Engberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dii...@freebsd.org --- Comment #1 from Daniel Engberg --- First step would be adding instructions to Porters Handbook otherwise we'll just create an endless loop of fixing added ports. I'd suggest that you use Phabricator (reviews.freebsd.org) and loop in Rust as well as portmgr and docs ppl. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 266571] Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266571
Bug ID: 266571
Summary: Porter's Handbook: Using cargo: Use Makefile.crates
instead of Makefile's CARGO_CRATES
Product: Documentation
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity: Affects Many People
Priority: ---
Component: Books & Articles
Assignee: d...@freebsd.org
Reporter: edua...@freebsd.org
Hello,
For some time that Mk/Uses/cargo.mk (.sinclude "${MASTERDIR}/Makefile.crates")
permits using Makefile.crates instead of Makefile to include list of
cargo-crates. This feature has the advantage of having cleaner Makefile and
easier updates with `make cargo-crates > Makefile.crates`.
For what I see, only a few maintainers know about this "hiden" ports framework
feature.
What I propose is to change methodology of rust/cargo ports to include
Makefile.crates.
As an example, we have Makefile PLIST_FILES against pkg-plist and it's very
well explained:
"There is only one case when pkg-plist can be omitted from a port. If the port
installs just a handful of files, list them in PLIST_FILES, within the port’s
Makefile. (...)"
The same could be adapted to Makefile.crates (if/when methodology gets
updated):
"There is only one case when Makefile.crates can be omitted from a port. If the
port uses just a handful of cargo crates, list them in CARGO_CRATES, within the
port’s Makefile. (...)"
Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
