Re: Wow: Building the likes of devel/llvm16 now requires building rust first (when rust is out of date). . . A WORKAROUND

In reply to: Tomoaki AOKI : "Re: Wow: Building the likes of devel/llvm16 now requires building rust first (when rust is out of date). . . A WORKAROUND"
Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
From: Brooks Davis <brooks_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:36 UTC
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 03:20:37PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:38:24 +0000
> Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 06:37:39PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:32:20 -0700
> > > Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sep 13, 2023, at 23:20, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Note: py39 is in use in my context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Building devel/llvm16 requires building textproc/py-recommonmark@py39
> > > > > Building textproc/py-recommonmark@py39 requires building textproc/py-sphinx@py39
> > > > > Building textproc/py-sphinx@py39 requires building www/py-requests@py39
> > > > > Building www/py-requests@py39 requires building net/py-urllib3@py39
> > > > > Building net/py-urllib3@py39 requires building security/py-openssl@py39
> > > > > Building security/py-openssl@py39 requires building security/py-cryptography@py39
> > > > > Building security/py-cryptography@py39 requires building devel/py-setuptools-rust@py39
> > > > > Building devel/py-setuptools-rust@py39 requires building lang/rust
> > > > > 
> > > > > Building devel/llvm16 and the like just got more
> > > > > resource intensive for those not already building
> > > > > lang/rust . Building lang/rust in my context uses
> > > > > system-clang ( not a devel/llvm* ). So no loop in
> > > > > my context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I normally build rust anyway. But other folks may
> > > > > have been avoiding such.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I have the file (for other reasons):
> > > > 
> > > > /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf
> > > > 
> > > > and I added to it:
> > > > 
> > > > .if ${.CURDIR:M*/devel/llvm*}
> > > > OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS
> > > > .endif
> > > > 
> > > > This overrides the "always on" for DOCS for
> > > > the various devel/llvm* . (In more complicated
> > > > contexts += would be appropriate i order to
> > > > allow multiple assignments to accumulate.)
> > > > 
> > > > This stopped the recommonmark use and, so, stopped
> > > > the sequence of dependencies leading to lang/rust
> > > > being required.
> > > > 
> > > > This appears to do more than whatever John F Carr did
> > > > to get it to report in his context:
> > > > 
> > > > ===> The following configuration options are available for llvm17-17.0.0.r4:
> > > >    . . .
> > > >    DOCS=off: Build and/or install documentation
> > > >    . . .
> > > > 
> > > > (Likely normal style options file content was involved.)
> > > > 
> > > > I did not make any such "normal style" OPTIONS changes and the
> > > > log file for my build  attempt reported:
> > > > 
> > > > ---Begin OPTIONS List---
> > > > ===> The following configuration options are available for llvm17-17.0.0.r4:
> > > >      BE_AMDGPU=on: AMD GPU backend (required by mesa)
> > > >      BE_WASM=on: WebAssembly backend (required by firefox via wasi)
> > > >      CLANG=on: Build clang
> > > >      COMPILER_RT=on: Sanitizer libraries
> > > >      DOCS=off: Build and/or install documentation
> > > >      EXTRAS=on: Extra clang tools
> > > >      FLANG=off: Flang FORTRAN compiler
> > > >      GOLD=on: Build the LLVM Gold plugin for LTO
> > > >      LIT=on: Install lit and FileCheck test tools
> > > >      LLD=on: Install lld, the LLVM linker
> > > >      LLDB=on: Install lldb, the LLVM debugger
> > > >      MLIR=on: Multi-Level Intermediate Representation
> > > >      OPENMP=on: Install libomp, the LLVM OpenMP runtime library
> > > >      POLLY=on: Polyhedral loop and data-locality optimizer
> > > >      PYCLANG=on: Install python bindings to libclang
> > > >      STATIC_LIBS=on: Install static libraries (does not effect sanitizers)
> > > > ====> Options available for the single BACKENDS: you have to select exactly one of them
> > > >      BE_FREEBSD=off: Backends for FreeBSD architectures
> > > >      BE_NATIVE=off: Backend(s) for this architecture (X86)
> > > >      BE_STANDARD=on: All non-experimental backends
> > > > ===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings
> > > > ---End OPTIONS List---
> > > > 
> > > > The --PLIST_SUB-- section ended up listing: PORTDOCS="@comment
> > > > and: DOCS="@comment " NO_DOCS=""
> > > > but still listed: DOCSDIR="share/doc/llvm17"
> > > > 
> > > > The --SUB_LIST-- section ended up listing: DOCS="@comment " NO_DOCS=""
> > > > but still listed: DOCSDIR=/usr/local/share/doc/llvm17
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > FYI, without rust having been built, my first ever build
> > > > of llvm17 (not reporting on the 49 prior poort->package
> > > > builds before devel/llvm17 started):
> > > > 
> > > > [00:43:30] Finished devel/llvm17@default | llvm17-17.0.0.r4: Success
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > FYI:
> > > > 
> > > > 5.14.1.3 Default Options in:
> > > > 
> > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/makefiles/#makefile-options
> > > > 
> > > > reports the always-on status for DOCS (and some more)
> > > > but not the way(s) to override that status for specific
> > > > ports. It seems that only some ways actually change the
> > > > status to off --and I've found one such.
> > > > 
> > > > ===
> > > > Mark Millard
> > > > marklmi at yahoo.com
> > > 
> > > So is it easily possible to docs of llvm ports to be separate ports?
> > 
> > No.  Docs are built as part of each enabled component.
> > 
> > -- Brooks
> 
> Not sure it's possible or not (maybe impossible now), if multiple
> packages can be generated by single port on single build,
> 
>   if DOCS option is set, generate 2 pkgs
>     llvm(major)-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg
>     llvm(major)-doc-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg
>   if not, generate
>     llvm(major)-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg
>   only,
> 
> set DOCS by default for pkg build cluster and anyone who do not want
> suffer from rust hell can unset DOCS and install docs pkg from official
> repo.

Multi-package support won't help with the dependencies.

Anyone can disable DOCS today.

That being said, there's no reason to think that another option won't
grow a rust dependency in the next couple years so the project should be
focusing making the experience of using rust better rather than fighting
losing battles.  Personally I think supporting some sort of toolchain
repo with a lower update frequency on par with the in-tree llvm might be
a good solution.  Something like this is likely necessarily for fully
external toolchain support anyway.

-- Brooks