Rust in base

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:53:35 +0000 (UTC)
Ihor Antonov <ihor at antonovs.family> wrote:

> > > 
> > > > 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?https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgBase

	A couple of links to get you started:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/PkgBase
https://wiki.freebsd.org/DevSummit/201905/PackageBase

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at sohara.org>