Re: Wow: Building the likes of devel/llvm16 now requires building rust first (when rust is out of date). . . A WORKAROUND
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:05:36 UTC
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 03:20:37PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:38:24 +0000 > Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 06:37:39PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:32:20 -0700 > > > Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 2023, at 23:20, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Note: py39 is in use in my context. > > > > > > > > > > Building devel/llvm16 requires building textproc/py-recommonmark@py39 > > > > > Building textproc/py-recommonmark@py39 requires building textproc/py-sphinx@py39 > > > > > Building textproc/py-sphinx@py39 requires building www/py-requests@py39 > > > > > Building www/py-requests@py39 requires building net/py-urllib3@py39 > > > > > Building net/py-urllib3@py39 requires building security/py-openssl@py39 > > > > > Building security/py-openssl@py39 requires building security/py-cryptography@py39 > > > > > Building security/py-cryptography@py39 requires building devel/py-setuptools-rust@py39 > > > > > Building devel/py-setuptools-rust@py39 requires building lang/rust > > > > > > > > > > Building devel/llvm16 and the like just got more > > > > > resource intensive for those not already building > > > > > lang/rust . Building lang/rust in my context uses > > > > > system-clang ( not a devel/llvm* ). So no loop in > > > > > my context. > > > > > > > > > > I normally build rust anyway. But other folks may > > > > > have been avoiding such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have the file (for other reasons): > > > > > > > > /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf > > > > > > > > and I added to it: > > > > > > > > .if ${.CURDIR:M*/devel/llvm*} > > > > OPTIONS_UNSET=DOCS > > > > .endif > > > > > > > > This overrides the "always on" for DOCS for > > > > the various devel/llvm* . (In more complicated > > > > contexts += would be appropriate i order to > > > > allow multiple assignments to accumulate.) > > > > > > > > This stopped the recommonmark use and, so, stopped > > > > the sequence of dependencies leading to lang/rust > > > > being required. > > > > > > > > This appears to do more than whatever John F Carr did > > > > to get it to report in his context: > > > > > > > > ===> The following configuration options are available for llvm17-17.0.0.r4: > > > > . . . > > > > DOCS=off: Build and/or install documentation > > > > . . . > > > > > > > > (Likely normal style options file content was involved.) > > > > > > > > I did not make any such "normal style" OPTIONS changes and the > > > > log file for my build attempt reported: > > > > > > > > ---Begin OPTIONS List--- > > > > ===> The following configuration options are available for llvm17-17.0.0.r4: > > > > BE_AMDGPU=on: AMD GPU backend (required by mesa) > > > > BE_WASM=on: WebAssembly backend (required by firefox via wasi) > > > > CLANG=on: Build clang > > > > COMPILER_RT=on: Sanitizer libraries > > > > DOCS=off: Build and/or install documentation > > > > EXTRAS=on: Extra clang tools > > > > FLANG=off: Flang FORTRAN compiler > > > > GOLD=on: Build the LLVM Gold plugin for LTO > > > > LIT=on: Install lit and FileCheck test tools > > > > LLD=on: Install lld, the LLVM linker > > > > LLDB=on: Install lldb, the LLVM debugger > > > > MLIR=on: Multi-Level Intermediate Representation > > > > OPENMP=on: Install libomp, the LLVM OpenMP runtime library > > > > POLLY=on: Polyhedral loop and data-locality optimizer > > > > PYCLANG=on: Install python bindings to libclang > > > > STATIC_LIBS=on: Install static libraries (does not effect sanitizers) > > > > ====> Options available for the single BACKENDS: you have to select exactly one of them > > > > BE_FREEBSD=off: Backends for FreeBSD architectures > > > > BE_NATIVE=off: Backend(s) for this architecture (X86) > > > > BE_STANDARD=on: All non-experimental backends > > > > ===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings > > > > ---End OPTIONS List--- > > > > > > > > The --PLIST_SUB-- section ended up listing: PORTDOCS="@comment > > > > and: DOCS="@comment " NO_DOCS="" > > > > but still listed: DOCSDIR="share/doc/llvm17" > > > > > > > > The --SUB_LIST-- section ended up listing: DOCS="@comment " NO_DOCS="" > > > > but still listed: DOCSDIR=/usr/local/share/doc/llvm17 > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI, without rust having been built, my first ever build > > > > of llvm17 (not reporting on the 49 prior poort->package > > > > builds before devel/llvm17 started): > > > > > > > > [00:43:30] Finished devel/llvm17@default | llvm17-17.0.0.r4: Success > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI: > > > > > > > > 5.14.1.3 Default Options in: > > > > > > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/makefiles/#makefile-options > > > > > > > > reports the always-on status for DOCS (and some more) > > > > but not the way(s) to override that status for specific > > > > ports. It seems that only some ways actually change the > > > > status to off --and I've found one such. > > > > > > > > === > > > > Mark Millard > > > > marklmi at yahoo.com > > > > > > So is it easily possible to docs of llvm ports to be separate ports? > > > > No. Docs are built as part of each enabled component. > > > > -- Brooks > > Not sure it's possible or not (maybe impossible now), if multiple > packages can be generated by single port on single build, > > if DOCS option is set, generate 2 pkgs > llvm(major)-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg > llvm(major)-doc-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg > if not, generate > llvm(major)-(full-ver)_(rev),(epoch).pkg > only, > > set DOCS by default for pkg build cluster and anyone who do not want > suffer from rust hell can unset DOCS and install docs pkg from official > repo. Multi-package support won't help with the dependencies. Anyone can disable DOCS today. That being said, there's no reason to think that another option won't grow a rust dependency in the next couple years so the project should be focusing making the experience of using rust better rather than fighting losing battles. Personally I think supporting some sort of toolchain repo with a lower update frequency on par with the in-tree llvm might be a good solution. Something like this is likely necessarily for fully external toolchain support anyway. -- Brooks