Re: git: 06601897e5cd - main - framework: reintroduce the feature enabling code

From: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists_at_pyret.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:49:27 UTC
On 2024-07-13T16:30:31.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 02:04:48PM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:
>>  On 2024-07-13T08:47:47.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold
>>  <mat@freebsd.org>
>>  
>>   wrote:
>>  
>>>   On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 06:11:04AM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:
>>>   
>>>>    Hi,
>>>>    
>>>>     This changes so LTO option is no longer applied to Rust
>>>>    (cargo)
>>>>    
>>>>     ports
>>>>    
>>>>     BY DEFAULT causing a regresssion, please fix.
>>>   
>>>    As it has been three months, nobody complained something was
>>>   broken
>>>   
>>>    so,
>>>   
>>>    I don't think anything is actually broken.
>>>   
>>>    LTO as are a few other features like SSP are user facing
>>>   features,
>>>   
>>>    not a
>>>   
>>>    porters facing options, it means, it's up to the person doing
>>>   the
>>>   
>>>    building to choose wether to enable it or not, it is **not** up
>>>   to
>>>   
>>>    the
>>>   
>>>    person porting the software to forcefully enable it.
>>>   
>>>    -- 
>>>   
>>>    Mathieu Arnold
>>  
>>   Hi,
>>  
>>   Likely because this pretty much silently went by because it was
>>  posted
>>  
>>   on Phab and you only CCed bapt. It's been enabled since Jan 2023
>>  
>>   (https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/Mk/Uses/cargo.mk?id=967022fd812cf67dec264ee4e53bd016b69e7a2b)
>>  
>>   and tested/discussed here https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736
>>  before
>>  
>>   being enabled/committed. I noticed it now while updating a Rust
>>  
>>   (cargo-based) port.
> 
> Mmmm, yes, I know about that, and I agree, this commits reverts this
> 
> behavior.
> 
> Because choosing to build with or without LTO is a user facing
> feature,
> 
> not a porter facing feature, so, it has to be set by people building
> the
> 
> things, not by the framework or a port.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mathieu Arnold

Hi,

Given that it was commonly agreed upon as a sane default I don't see
how your opinion in this case weights more. That being said, any
option could be defined as user facing option some of which are
already agreed upon as sane such as DOCS and EXAMPLES.

Best regards,

Daniel