Re: Any interest in lang/rust-bin?

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:04 PM Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 5:47 PM Mathieu Arnold <mat@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 <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.
>
> What about people that contribute to ports and run poudriere testport
> on their little port and then having to wait an hour for rust to
> compile?

Another situation I experienced myself, is building custom python
module (i.e. pyocd + cmsis-pack-manager) on ARM where python packages
are not provided and need to build stuff from sources including
dependencies on a resource constrained platform. Luckily rust pkg is
now there and if it can be smaller as an option then why not?

> Even if we're talking about regular users that build their own repos -
> there might be various reasons why they are doing that. For instance,
> someone might just want to enable some non-default options for some
> ports. Why should this require building rust?

I thought port flavors are here for that? Why not add flavor to
existing port? I asked for that before but did not get any answer -
why not make `pkg install rust@minimal` instead of creating additional
ports (which may be fine too) or introducing untrusted binaries?

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info