Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM)

On 03/09/2024 21:36, David Cross wrote:

[..]

>> (The "toolchain-llvm" (meta-)port may have to be a short-cut, to
>> not have the llvm port drag in everything and the kitchen-sink,
>> which would be /precisely/ the same as the llvm which lives in src
>> today.)
>>
>> This distribution format is neither more nor less perfect with
>> respect to reproducible builds and "Reflections on trusting trust"
>> than what we have today.
>>
>> And yes, we have ports written in Rust, why do you ask?
>>
>> Poul-Henning
>>
>> PS: I overdosed on release work 25+ years ago, and have not been
>> paying them much attention since, but if this is what the pkgbase
>> crew has been pushing for more than a decade, we all owe them an
>> apology.
> 
> As a quick note I constantly build freebsd from source. I do it for all of my systems for all updates, all patch releases.
> 
> I may be an outlier here, but my impression from email, forum posts, and redit threads suggests it is at least somewhat common.
> 
> There are ways to marry both worlds (like poudriere, which I also use to manage my empire), but I’d like to not completely discount the usecase; at the very least the ease of buildworld is important for the releasee engineering process
> itself.

We also build every update, or major version upgrade from /usr/src (and 
then distribute it to target machines by rsync as it is the fastest 
process for us)
But I'm not saying it has to stay that way forever. I agree with what 
PHK describes. External toolchain or pkg base is a more promising 
future. Rebuilding LLVM / Rust (you name it) with each update of base or 
ports is a major pain now. Even if you need to rebuild a small subset of 
packages from ports you almost always end up rebuilding something that 
big and slow as LLVM, Rust, Cmake taking hours, but that's a different 
story.

Kind regards
Miroslav Lachman