FFMpeg can certainly be compiled without Rust, including the latest (upstream) version. Perhaps a component that is pulling in Rust should rather be made an optional variant for all systems – it is hardly justified to have it as the default, IMHO.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:32 AM grey <artki...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a tangential, so please forgive me if this seems as if it is > the wrong time to bring this up, but I seem to have some Rustaceans > who may know more about this than I. > > I was recently seeing if there might be a way to improve upon the > FFmpeg ports (there are currently three: ffmpeg, fffmpeg-devel and > ffmpeg-upstream, though two of them are at the same version presently) > to reduce the number of dependencies. While I was able to make a go of > it successfully and included an attempt at a Portfile here: > https://trac.macports.org/ticket/66424# in the comments Ken suggested > that since the current MacPorts for FFmpeg have rust as a dependency, > that brings in a flood of other dependencies. > > To be honest, I am unsure why FFmpeg would require rust (it doesn't in > my builds from upstream's repository if cloning from source nor in my > Portfile using a versioned release), and it seems as if such things > may be better separated into a variant, but even in the occasion where > rust is considered required, does rust really have that many > dependencies? I guess it is the Kolmogorov complexity reduction spirit > in me, but am I crazy for thinking that a dependency audit and > minimizing such things might be worthwhile (probably for more than > merely FFmpeg, perhaps even the rust MacPort itself)? > > Thank you for any insights into a rather unrelated matter. > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 5:21 PM Kirill A. Korinsky via macports-dev > <macports-dev@lists.macports.org> wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > Clearly some thought has to be given to how to ensure the dependency > tree does not get too long. We don’t want, when a new OS comes out for it > to have to build tens of rust versions, just to ultimately bootstrap the > last one. That might just be keeping the first bootstrap port, mrustc new > enough at all times such that the list is kept manageable. > > > > > > Unfortunately mrust supports to build rust up to 1.54. > > > > As soon as upstream of mrust is updated compiler to something never, > I'll update the port and short the tree. > > > > -- > > wbr, Kirill > > > > On 13. Dec 2022, at 18:16, Christopher Jones <jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 13 Dec 2022, at 5:07 pm, Kirill A. Korinsky via macports-dev < > macports-dev@lists.macports.org> wrote: > > > > David, > > > > the idea is creating a dependency chain: > > > > Port rust (version 1.66) depends on rust-1.65 to be build; > > Port rust-1.65 depends on rust-1.64 to be build; > > Port rust-1.64 depends on rust-1.63 to be build; > > ... > > Port rust-1.56 depends on rust-1.55 to be build; > > Port rust-1.55 depends on rust-1.54 to be build; > > Port rust-1.54 depends on mrsutc to be build. > > > > :) > > > > When someone would like to add rust 1.67, he need to add port rust-1.66 > which should be used as bootstrap compiler. > > > > I hate this way, but it is the only way to bootstrap it from scratch. > > > > > > Clearly some thought has to be given to how to ensure the dependency > tree does not get too long. We don’t want, when a new OS comes out for it > to have to build tens of rust versions, just to ultimately bootstrap the > last one. That might just be keeping the first bootstrap port, mrustc new > enough at all times such that the list is kept manageable. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > When mrust had support new rust, we may cut the tree by removing a lot > of unused ports. > > > > > > -- > > wbr, Kirill > > > > On 13. Dec 2022, at 17:53, David Gilman <davidgilm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The work on mrustc is novel but I don't think it solves the issues we > have here. On modern systems MacPorts uses bootstrap compilers provided by > Rust upstream. MCL's bootstrap compilers are for older systems. > > > > To update rust, my understanding is that you have to do the usual work > of rebasing patches (my PR), but you also have to provide the binaries for > older systems which I could not provide. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 11:07 AM Kirill A. Korinsky via macports-dev < > macports-dev@lists.macports.org> wrote: > >> > >> Folks, > >> > >> From the third hand we may build our own bootstrap chain of rust from > scratch. > >> > >> Or almost. > >> > >> We have a https://ports.macports.org/port/mrustc/details/ which is > able to bootstrap 1.54 rust on x86_64 and arm64. > >> > >> Unfortunately support of i386 isn't yet finished at upstream. I plan to > fix it, but it requires time and availability of hardware to test it :) > >> > >> I do have a commits which implements rust bootstrap by cahin: mrustc -> > rust 1.54 -> rust 1.55 -> rust 1.56; I can start to open PRs to move > step-by-step and in month we'll have the last rust via this chain. > >> > >> -- > >> wbr, Kirill > >> > >> On 13. Dec 2022, at 16:49, Christopher Jones <jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> In my opinion, hosting and maintaining these ‘bootstrap’ compilers > outside the macports infrastructure was a poor choice, for all the reasons > you mention below. I thought this at the time it was done, and even more so > now. > >> > >> Personally, I would suggest you think about a change to how the rust > compiler is package, to mirror a bit how things are done with gcc and > clang. Namely, move to a model where the version is part of the port name, > e.g. the current one would be called something like rust-1.61. > >> > >> The main reason for doing this, is adding a new version would that not > remove the previous version, and thus you could simple use it as the > bootstrap compiler. So with the above, when you add rust-1.62 that would > simple configure itself to bootstrap using the macports rust-1.61 port. > >> > >> Yes, this will require some work to set up. You will need to make all > the various rust versions installable along side each other, so some > tweaking of the install prefix would be needed. > >> > >> One thing I would do differently though to how gcc/clang do things is I > would try and have a single rust port file, that implements all the > versions as sub-ports. I suspect most of what each needs can then just be > shared , such that what needs to be different for each sub-port is actually > not that much. > >> > >> Regarding how users of rust then use these ports, there are a couple > options > >> > >> 1. Add a shim port ‘rust’ which simply installs sym-links etc. to the > ‘current best version’ that mimics the current installation, i.e. in the > main prefix. If done well, users should then be blind to the changes above. > >> 2. Users that want an older rust could explicitly depend on and use a > specific versioned rust-N > >> > >> For me, this approach makes a lot more sense than the current way these > bootstrap compilers are maintained. > >> > >> cheers Chris > >> > >> > >> On 13 Dec 2022, at 2:57 pm, Herby G <herby.gil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello all, > >> > >> Right now, Rust in MacPorts is severely out of date. It's about 5 > versions behind the current release, which at the moment is at 1.65.0. In > comparison, MacPorts Rust is currently at 1.61.0. > >> > >> As a core language underlying a lot of other ports, many of these ports > cannot be updated to their latest versions because these versions require > current versions of Rust. At the time of this writing, 156 ports are being > built using Rust ( https://ports.macports.org/port/rust/details/ ), some > quite heavily used by the community, including projects like `git-delta`, > `bat` and `fd`. > >> > >> MarcusCalhoun-Lopez's PR here ( > https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/14277 ) heavily rewrote > the Rust port to run on older systems, and was very much celebrated and > endorsed. However, as a result of this PR, the Rust port became a lot more > complicated, and also introduced a new critical bootstrap compiler > (referenced in the Rust portgroup here: > https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/2d39b30a32fcf0f5e1cff04f172e9d55ae08ba48/_resources/port1.0/group/rust-1.0.tcl#L140), > which is being hosted in MarcusCalhoun-Lopez's personal Github account ( > https://github.com/MarcusCalhoun-Lopez/rust/releases ). Marcus did try > to ask about a more official location to host the bootstrap compiler in a > macports-dev thread: > https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2022-April/044243.html > , but ultimately per the responses he decided to just host it in his > personal account himself. > >> > >> Since this massive change to the Rust port at 1.60.0, it's only seen > one update since then to 1.61.0 ( > https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/8431ccb48eec4824736eca51f643523356091cd6 > ) > >> > >> David Gilman opened a PR recently attempting to update Rust to 1.64.0 ( > https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/16329 ), but Gilman > doesn't have access to update the bootstrap compiler, because as of right > now, only MarcusCalhoun-Lopez knows how to build it, and also it's hosted > in Calhoun's Github account as mentioned prior. > >> > >> We need to figure out a more sustainable approach for this bootstrap > compiler, including how it can be built, and hosting it somewhere where a > small set of MacPorts maintainers can build and update it so that we can > get MacPorts Rust back on track. As things are today, only > MarcusCalhoun-Lopez has all the pieces required to update this port, and > there's been no word from him for months now as the Rust port has fallen > further and further behind. Being such a critical core language port, it > may make sense to create a repo within the MacPorts Github organization > where a set of maintainers can host and update the Rust bootstrap compiler. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
