On 6/7/25 17:18, Pete Wright wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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
$
Looks like subpackages look like what you're looking for.
Not sure if they are available for general usage though.
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.
IMHO this is better solved by building on more powerful machines and
deploying to low power VMs. CI systems are specific for this kind of
need AFAIK.
But not knowing your specific use case I cannot be sure.
--
Guido Falsi <[email protected]>
