Re: OK to inject BUILDLINK_PASSTHRU_RPATHDIRS into lang/rust?

["Dr. Thomas Orgis" <thomas.orgis%uni-hamburg.de@localhost>]

Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:33:40 +0100
schrieb Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%pkgsrc.org@localhost>:

> I don't like this, FWIW.  Any time I've needed to have custom hacks to 
> support my custom environment I've kept them in my own trees.

So far I'm trying not to deviate too much and hence only carry a
directory of patches, hoping that I don't really need a full branch of
all of pkgsrc. With more tooling it gets easy to forget that some stuff
maybe _should_ get merged;-)

>  The rust 
> package is already far too complicated in my opinion, and personally I'd 
> prefer to limit it to what is absolutely essential for most users.

I see a bit of justification for this in that pkgsrc already does
patching to insert @PREFIX@/lib at the same place. Realizing that
BUILDLINK_PASSTHRU_RPATHDIRS needs the same handling in rust to be
consistent with other packages … we ideally should aim for a solution
that does not need rust source patching at all.

How are the efforts going for upstreaming those 58 patches pkgsrc
carries for lang/rust? Is the rust project hostile to attempts to flex
builds from source into using external libraries, integrate in
distributions? It do see a number of insertions of @PREFIX@/lib into
library search or rpath flags in rust. I might have to add my hack for
more rpaths to multiple places to also make crates work properly … so
an upstream option to „Include this list of library paths everywhere,
instead of ORIGIN” would be welcomed and get rid of a number of patch
hunks. Was this tried yet?


Alrighty then,

Thomas

-- 
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamburg