Rust in base

[Ihor Antonov]

> > 
> > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Ihor Antonov
> > > <ihor at antonovs.family> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So there are 2 questions: - technical one: how bootstrapping issue can
> > > > be solved?  - what does FreeBSD community think of the idea to have
> > > > Rust in base?
> > >
> > >         Some years back a great deal of work was done to remove perl from
> > >         the base so adding Rust (or anything else) would be a step back.
> > >         An old BSD goal is that base should be just enough to be self
> > >         hosting and be BSD (removing the traditional games from the base
> > >         took some discussion).
> > >
> > >
> > As a fellow embedded guy, +1 to what Steve says.  Even things in the "Base"
> > should probably have package db entries so they can be removed.



> > Target systems don't necessarily need a compiler or a full tool chain.
> > Then we can converge on a consensus set of basic tools that most people
> > will need, with the opportunity to remove them – rather than creating a
> > mini/micro/nano-FreeBSD

> I just hope it doesn't bring us the "joy" known from Linux land where a
> failed update (in this context: of application software, here: installed
> ports / packages) will render the whole system unusable beyong recovery...
> "even the kernel is a package". ;-)


Thanks your for replies, 

I have probably mixed different things into one bag. Base should be as
minimalist / configurable as people need.  If you are doing embedded indeed you
don't need toolchain on your target system, all you need is the binary code
that does exactly and only what you need.

What I meant is probably not "bring rust into base", but more like "allow
Rust(or Oberon, or any other language that fits the purpose) software in the
lower levels of the system", without compromising flexibility/configuration of
the system. And breaking base into smaller packages would help greatly here.


> That is a "longer term goal", but development is heading into the direction
> of making the base OS more modular, and finally abandoning freebsd-update in
> favor of "pkg for base". It would enable FreeBSD to become even more suitable
> for "specialized applications" where you intendedly want a minimal or
> tailored footprint of the OS.

Polytropon, can you share elaborate on this? Who is doing this? How can one
participate in this effort?

Thanks,


Ihor