Re: Any interest in lang/rust-bin?

On 6/7/25 7:46 AM, Mathieu Arnold 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 <mat@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.
> 

IMHO there should be a middle ground here, our rust port contains over 
40k html files and documentation.  this seems wild that we just force 
people to deal with that rather than trying to improve things for a 
wider set of users.  maybe the answer is a no-doc version of the package?

$ pkg list rust | grep html | wc -l
    44447
$

for low power vm's or systems its super wasteful to force installation 
of so many small files.  rust/cargo is slow enough, but having to wait 
ages for rust itself just makes things needlessly more painful.

-pete


-- 
Pete Wright
pete@nomadlogic.org