Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:49:27 +0200
From:      Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>
To:        Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "arrowd@FreeBSD.org" <arrowd@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: git: 06601897e5cd - main - framework: reintroduce the  feature enabling code
Message-ID:  <d66b209388c08a537cef775a5d5d7891@mail.infomaniak.com>
In-Reply-To: <4cvwsu7vebcrzorvjygkhzefbnjq2cegtobxbybxpglltsla3k@637dblgngbon>
References:  <202404120754.43C7slbr026326@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <12af8e210220224883a7856115f61be9@mail.infomaniak.com> <6kivt3yarts23vqyv277vqrw6dhswo4hilbdkspvnaz544mtvc@yiyqgdtnp6y7> <457bab3436f42fd12d80beb16e067cf0@mail.infomaniak.com> <4cvwsu7vebcrzorvjygkhzefbnjq2cegtobxbybxpglltsla3k@637dblgngbon>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 2024-07-13T16:30:31.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 02:04:48PM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:
>>  On 2024-07-13T08:47:47.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold
>>  <mat@freebsd.org>
>>  
>>   wrote:
>>  
>>>   On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 06:11:04AM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:
>>>   
>>>>    Hi,
>>>>    
>>>>     This changes so LTO option is no longer applied to Rust
>>>>    (cargo)
>>>>    
>>>>     ports
>>>>    
>>>>     BY DEFAULT causing a regresssion, please fix.
>>>   
>>>    As it has been three months, nobody complained something was
>>>   broken
>>>   
>>>    so,
>>>   
>>>    I don't think anything is actually broken.
>>>   
>>>    LTO as are a few other features like SSP are user facing
>>>   features,
>>>   
>>>    not a
>>>   
>>>    porters facing options, it means, it's up to the person doing
>>>   the
>>>   
>>>    building to choose wether to enable it or not, it is **not** up
>>>   to
>>>   
>>>    the
>>>   
>>>    person porting the software to forcefully enable it.
>>>   
>>>    -- 
>>>   
>>>    Mathieu Arnold
>>  
>>   Hi,
>>  
>>   Likely because this pretty much silently went by because it was
>>  posted
>>  
>>   on Phab and you only CCed bapt. It's been enabled since Jan 2023
>>  
>>   (https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/Mk/Uses/cargo.mk?id=967022fd812cf67dec264ee4e53bd016b69e7a2b)
>>  
>>   and tested/discussed here https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736
>>  before
>>  
>>   being enabled/committed. I noticed it now while updating a Rust
>>  
>>   (cargo-based) port.
> 
> Mmmm, yes, I know about that, and I agree, this commits reverts this
> 
> behavior.
> 
> Because choosing to build with or without LTO is a user facing
> feature,
> 
> not a porter facing feature, so, it has to be set by people building
> the
> 
> things, not by the framework or a port.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mathieu Arnold

Hi,

Given that it was commonly agreed upon as a sane default I don't see
how your opinion in this case weights more. That being said, any
option could be defined as user facing option some of which are
already agreed upon as sane such as DOCS and EXAMPLES.

Best regards,

Daniel


[-- Attachment #2 --]
<html><body><div>On 2024-07-13T16:30:31.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold &lt;mat@freebsd.org&gt; wrote:<br></div><div class="ik_mail_quote answerContentMessage"><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><pre style="white-space: normal;"><div>On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 02:04:48PM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div>  On 2024-07-13T08:47:47.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold &lt;<a href="mailto:mat@freebsd.org" class="defaultMailLink">mat@freebsd.org</a>&gt;<br></div><div> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div>   On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 06:11:04AM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div>    Hi,<br></div><div>   <br></div><div>    This changes so LTO option is no longer applied to Rust (cargo)<br></div><div>   ports<br></div><div>   <br></div><div>    BY DEFAULT causing a regresssion, please fix.<br></div></blockquote><div>   <br></div><div>  As it has been three months, nobody complained something was broken<br></div><div>  so,<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  I don't think anything is actually broken.<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  LTO as are a few other features like SSP are user facing features,<br></div><div>  not a<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  porters facing options, it means, it's up to the person doing the<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  building to choose wether to enable it or not, it is **not** up to<br></div><div>  the<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  person porting the software to forcefully enable it.<br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  -- <br></div><div>  <br></div><div>  Mathieu Arnold<br></div></blockquote><div>  <br></div><div> Hi,<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Likely because this pretty much silently went by because it was posted<br></div><div> on Phab and you only CCed bapt. It's been enabled since Jan 2023<br></div><div> (<a href="https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/Mk/Uses/cargo.mk?id=967022fd812cf67dec264ee4e53bd016b69e7a2b" class="defaultMailLink" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ik="ik-secure">https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/Mk/Uses/cargo.mk?id=967022fd812cf67dec264ee4e53bd016b69e7a2b</a>)<br></div><div>; and tested/discussed here <a href="https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736" class="defaultMailLink" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ik="ik-secure">https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736</a>; before<br></div><div> being enabled/committed. I noticed it now while updating a Rust<br></div><div> (cargo-based) port.<br></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><div>Mmmm, yes, I know about that, and I agree, this commits reverts this<br></div><div>behavior.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Because choosing to build with or without LTO is a user facing feature,<br></div><div>not a porter facing feature, so, it has to be set by people building the<br></div><div>things, not by the framework or a port.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Mathieu Arnold<br></div></pre></blockquote></div><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Given that it was commonly agreed upon as a sane default I don't see how your opinion in this case weights more. That being said, any option could be defined as user facing option some of which are already agreed upon as sane such as DOCS and EXAMPLES.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,<br></div><div>Daniel<br></div></body></html>

home | help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d66b209388c08a537cef775a5d5d7891>