Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 05:37:37 +0000 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Rust in base Message-ID: <20200125053737.5af7fefe1f94404210c9cfb3@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <1678077549.5929.1579910015816.JavaMail.zimbra@antonovs.family> References: <775662956.5865.1579896175788.JavaMail.zimbra@antonovs.family> <20200124221319.d4e7fa438cbb1f30da10af2d@sohara.org> <CAHu1Y70UmJB=cgq=an_gqv4ao==H2t5wCxqOudMO_mpX8Ra-pA@mail.gmail.com> <20200125003136.a1485866.freebsd@edvax.de> <1678077549.5929.1579910015816.JavaMail.zimbra@antonovs.family>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:53:35 +0000 (UTC) Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Ihor Antonov > > > > <ihor@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@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200125053737.5af7fefe1f94404210c9cfb3>