Hi Steven,
First thanks for you work in this area.
I have a question: does the produced cargo binary is as functionnal than
a cargo binary builded with cargo ? (the normal build process for cargo
is to compile it with cargo).
cargo has a testsuite. does the produced binary would pass this
testsuite ?
this question in order to check if we need a bootstrap for building
cargo or not: if the produced cargo binary is ok, I am not sure that we
need another port for building cargo (and we could rename
devel/cargo/bootstrap to devel/cargo).
What do you think ? Does the long list of DISTFILES is maintenable ? I
think it comes from cargo-bootstrap in some way ?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 09:11:22PM +1000, Steven McDonald wrote:
>
> I seem to have picked a tricky one for my first port, so I have a few
> questions:
>
> 1. I'm installing the cargo binary into
> /usr/local/libexec/cargo-bootstrap/, to avoid it accidentally ending
> up in the default $PATH. My intent is that the bootstrapped cargo
> binary can be used to build proper ports of all its dependencies,
> and eventually cargo itself. Does this seem like a reasonable plan?
do you really want to import the rust-ecosystem in ports ? just for
build cargo, it is 50 ports that would be needed.
I am not against it but I would need reflection.
> 2. I'm not sure if ONLY_FOR_ARCHS is necessary. lang/rust has
> ONLY_FOR_ARCHS = amd64, and since cargo depends on rust, it seems
> natural to just rely on the fact that we can run on any arch
> supported by rust. I've left it out for now, but should that be
> included?
here I don't known :) Someone else ?
> 3. Should the second-level name be something like rs-cargo instead of
> cargo? I notice other programming languages have their own
> 2-character prefix for package names; is there any convention there
> for new languages?
> 4. portcheck complains about lines longer than 80 characters in the
> Makefile, but I can't see any way to shorten these (they're just
> DISTFILES with very long version numbers). Is that OK to leave as
> is?
I would saying that it is ok
> 5. portcheck also complains about an extra file under patches/. Is
> there a better way to patch secondary DISTFILES than with the manual
> patch invocation I've got in do-build?
There are differents possibilities:
- put the file in files/ instead of patches/
- patch inline using sed
- others possibilities I don't known ?
> I'd appreciate any feedback.
There is a missing BUILD_DEP on lang/python/2.7. And the #!script for
bootstrap.py need to be adapted to ${MODPY_BIN}.
Thanks.
--
Sebastien Marie
