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

Hello,

Few days ago I builded FreeBSD system with WITHOUT_TOOLCHAIN="yes" for use in VM.
Then I have a sly idea to use it for poudriere-jail: let integrate llvm18 package to 'installed' dir and we'll have job done.

I have no luck. I somehow put llvm18 into 'installed' dir (dir that ws DESTDIR for installworld) via 'pkg' -r but "poudriere bulk" failed to find a compiler. I stuck with googling 'use llvm from ports as default compiler'. This is what about using external toolchain nowtime.

After 15+ years of using FreeBSD I came to the viewpoint that 'FreeBSD is src' in a mean that  'src' is a self-sufficent and is able per se to generate ad hoc operating systems.

As for 'self-sufficent' I suggest to test any decision with thought experiment:
Someone get FreeBSD and build the system (world/kernel). Then he  install builded system on servers. After 5 years he return and want to apply a patch and rebuild system. Would he be successful?

In case of ports I definetly answer: "No". Ports system told me to set ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED, then ALLOW_INSECURE, then it failed because certificates of  sites changed and it didn't know fresh root CAs.

May be I just call for little more care for those who prefer long-lived systems.

Sorry for interfering in the conversation.


Tuesday, September 3, 2024, 6:32:00 PM, you wrote:

> What is FreeBSD ?
> -----------------

> Forget Rust for the moment, I promise I will come back to it.

> FreeBSD as a project was created almost entirely as protest against
> the incompetent "UNIX-industry" as it existed around 1990.

> One of the stupidities we reacted against, was the unbundling of
> the C-compiler:  If you bought a UNIX system, the C-compiler would
> cost you extra, even through everybody knew that the vendor got it
> as part of their source license from AT&T.

> So from the very start, FreeBSD decided to deliver "A complete UNIX
> system with full source" and the only concession was that, hard
> disks costing what they did, you could choose to not install the
> manual pages and the source code on systems which did not need them.

> ('make world' celebrated 30 years last month! See: 3540f0e14a8)

> The only compiler we had source code for was GCC.  We would have
> preferred a different license, but we had no choice at the time.

> There were people who, reasonably, thought that X11 was also part
> of a "complete UNIX system", but the reality of 1.2MB "3D-printed
> save icons" made that a total non-starter, and therefore the ports
> collection is FreeBSD's barely younger twin.

> The source tree became our citadel: "FreeBSD is src".  If something
> was not in src, it was not FreeBSD.

> Buildworld or bust.

> The fight at the gate was fierce at times.

> Delivering a single consistent userland with the kernel has stood
> us well for three decades, and we should stick with that.

> But the world has changed, and we all know it, which is why ports,
> pkg, freebsd-update and pkgbase exist.

> A FreeBSD system with no installed ports is a rarity today.

> Not even a FreeBSD developers test-machine can avoid git-lite, but
> such machines do exist, typically in embedded applications.

> But a FreeBSD system recompiling itself from source is even rarer.

> And when it does, LLVM, source code we import verbatim from an
> entirely different project, and which no sane person would call
> "Related to FreeBSD", takes up more than three quarters of the
> compile time.

> That is objectively absurd.

> The only reason we do that, is because we stil have that outdated
> "FreeBSD is src" emotional hangup.

> We need to find a contemporary and useful answer to "What is FreeBSD?"


> The only answer I can think of
> ------------------------------

> "FreeBSD is ports (some of those ports contain the kernel and userland)"

> As part of the migration, we yank LLVM out of the src.

> LLVM does not belong in src by any sane criteria, and any microscopic
> benefits of "tight integration" can be delivered with a "toolchain-llvm"
> (meta-)port.

> Our minimal install images will contain:

>         The installer
>         The kernel package(s)
>         The userland package(s)

> "pkg upgrade" also upgrade kernel and userland packages - Welcome to
> the century of the fruitbat.

> The "normal install images will also contain:

>         The src package(s)
>             the source code built into kernel and userland packages
>         The toolchain package(s)
>             the package used to build the kernel and userland packages
>         The ports package(s)
>             the ports tree used to build the toolchain package(s)
>         All distribution files necessary to build the toolchain package(s)

> (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.




-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Pankov