Noticed this after rebuilding on top of #71688
Most Linux distributions default to `gcc` for their default `cc`
implementation (e.g. via Debian's `build-essential` meta-package, which
we can probably implicitly assume is installed), which means that they
won't typically have `clang` installed.
`librocksdb-sys` seems to always depend on `clang` on Linux. It looks
like this might be a consequence of using
[rust-bindgen](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-bindgen) (though I'm
confused why this didn't come up earlier), as it looks like rocksdb can
otherwise build with gcc.
This shouldn't be an issue for macos, since `clang` is the default `cc`
on that platform.
### What?
Ports a few more useful scripts from nextpack, namely:
- `patch-next`
- `sweep`
- `build-native` (to clean up incremental artifacts on compiler panics)
- the macOS compression agent
Copies changes from https://github.com/vercel/turbo/pull/8166, and
updates contributing documentation to include the installation of lld.
> **What's wrong with `ld`?** It's very slow and uses a lot of memory.
>
> **Why `lld`?** It's fast, mature, and well-supported. Meta and Google
use it for all their linking workloads. We're already using it for macos
and x86-64 Windows. There is [ongoing work to make it the default for
rustc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71515), and it already
is default on a few platforms.
>
> **Why not `mold`?** Mold is generally faster, but the margin is slim
enough for our workloads that it doesn't really matter. Mold only
recently got support for LTO, doesn't support v0 rust symbol demanging,
doesn't support BOLT (though we don't use that yet), etc. Mold is
maturing quickly, but `lld` still seems like the "safer" choice.
This brings over the utility scripts `pnpm pack-next` and `pnpm
unpack-next path/to/app` from Nextpack, along with the documentation,
which has been added to `contributing/core/developing.md`.
GitHub recommends blobless clones over shallow clones:
https://github.blog/2020-12-21-get-up-to-speed-with-partial-clone-and-shallow-clone/
> For these reasons we do not recommend shallow clones except for builds
that delete the repository immediately afterwards. Fetching from shallow
clones can cause more harm than good!
I've been using blobless clones for development for the last couple
weeks. The blobless clone has the benefit of including the full
repository history (for the cloned branch). Tools like `git blame` will
be slower as git fetches the related blobs on-demand.
Benchmarks (using all the flags in the docs):
- The blobless clone is faster on my machine, taking 11.1 seconds versus
13.1 seconds for the shallow clone.
- The blobless clone takes up 256M on disk, versus 244M for the shallow
clone. It's worse, but not by much.
Continues #39778Closes#40499
## Bug
- [ ] Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- [ ] Integration tests added
- [ ] Errors have helpful link attached, see `contributing.md`
## Feature
- [ ] Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the
feature request has been accepted for implementation before opening a
PR.
- [ ] Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- [ ] Integration tests added
- [ ] Documentation added
- [ ] Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- [ ] Errors have helpful link attached, see `contributing.md`
## Documentation / Examples
- [ ] Make sure the linting passes by running `pnpm lint`
- [ ] The examples guidelines are followed from [our contributing
doc](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md#adding-examples)
Co-authored-by: Tim Neutkens <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <[email protected]>
