11:20 a.m.
On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> [...]
> > +# Run in a separate build directory. Set to empty
> > +# for a in-source tree build, but note SRCDIR must
> > +# also be set to a corresponding relative path
> > +VPATHDIR = vpath
> > +SRCDIR = ..
>
> Do we even care about in-source builds? It's usually VPATH builds
> that will end up broken by mistake because someone was not careful
> enough when tweaking the build system...
As long as in-source builds are permitted by libvirt, we must
provide support for using them here to reproduce problems.
Personally I think we should drop support for in-source builds
as having 2 different ways of building the same thing means we
frequently break one or the other. There were objections last
time I suggested that though. NB QEMU is about to drop support
for in-source builds to reduce breakage
I'm aware of the conversation happening in QEMU land, and in fact
that's at least in part what caused the question :)
But you're right, as long as we support both in libvirt we should
also provide a way to pick one or the other when (CI) building.
> Either way, since we have full control over the way local
directories
> will show up inside the container, I would define these as
>
> SRCDIR = /build
> VPATHDIR = $(SRCDIR)/vpath
>
> that way people will only ever have to override VPATHDIR.
I'm not sure that will work in all places I use these vars,
but will investigate.
I have mentioned some potential issues later in the mail, but along
with those I have also provided solutions so I think we should be
good :)
> > +# Docker doesn't require the IDs you run as to exist
in
> > +# the container's /etc/passwd & /etc/group files, but
> > +# if they do not, then libvirt's 'make check' will fail
> > +# many tests
> > +PWDB_MOUNTS = \
> > + --volume $(HERE)/citree/group:/etc/group:ro,z \
> > + --volume $(HERE)/citree/passwd:/etc/passwd:ro,z
>
> Why do we copy the files under /citree before handing them over to
> Docker? Shouldn't we be able to mount them directly off /etc?
Prepare for a story of pain and suffering and swearing....
I did indeed just pass /etc/passwd direct to the --volume
arg when i first wrote this and it all worked "fine".
Then my screen locked and I couldn't log back in either
through GDM or the Linux text console or SSH
I had to reboot, at which point almost every single
systemd service failed.
Single user mode wouldn't even work.
After booting single user mode with SELinux disabled I
discovered that /etc/passwd now had the SELinux label
of the container I had just run, instead of "passwd_file_t"
Thus no process confined by SELinux had permission to
read /etc/passwd making life rather difficult.
There's probably a way to get docker to not screw with
the SELinux labels but I think it is more prudent to
take the absolutely guaranteed safe option & copy the
file :-)
Ouch :(
Perhaps we could add a very short comment mentioning the reason for
making a copy of the files, for the benefit of whoever will touch
the script months down the line.
[...]
> > +GIT_ARGS = \
> > + -c advice.detachedHead=false \
> > + -q \
>
> Why quiet? We're pretty verbose throughout the rest of the process.
I don't think the message from git were useful - the other
stuff you see is all related to the actual build process
which is the interesting bit.
Alright.
[...]
> As for CONFIGURE_OPTS, I think the name is pretty poor because
it's
> too similar to CONFIGURE_ARGS... We could either rename it to
> something like CONFIGURE_IMAGE_ARGS, since it contains the arguments
> that are baked in the Docker image, or CONFIGURE_CROSS_ARGS, since
> we have no planned use (that I know of) outside of passing
> information specific to cross-compilation. I think I have a slight
> preference for the former, but either one would be an improvement.
I don't think the name similarity actually matters in practice
because only one of them is used by the developer, the other is
just internal to the image, and we've documented which to use
higher up in the makefile. So I'd rather just stick with
the more concise names.
I'd really prefer a name that removes the ambiguity.
[...]
> One more question: what is gl_public_submodule_commit= supposed
to
> do? I tried running builds both with and without it, and the results
> seem to be the same.
gnulib has a make check target that will fail as the way we have
cloned submodules isn't the normal way submodules are supposed
to be initialized by git.
Hm, can you double check please? As mentioned above, I tried both
with and without the make variable being set, and in both cases
gnulib's 'make check' passed.
[...]
> > + @echo "Available targets:"
> > + @echo
> > + @echo " cibuild-\$$IMAGE - run a default 'make'"
> > + @echo " cicheck-\$$IMAGE - run a 'make check'"
> > + @echo " cishell-\$$IMAGE - run an interactive shell"
>
> Just a thought: instead of
>
> make ci-build-centos-7 MAKE_ARGS=check
>
> and in the future
>
> make ci-build-debian-9-cross-aarch64
>
> would it make sense to have something like
>
> make ci-build OS=centos-7 MAKE_ARGS=check
> make ci-build OS=debian-9 CROSS=aarch64
>
> instead? A bit more typing, perhaps, but it looks kinda better
> in my opinion, with the variable parts clearly presented as such...
I rather prefer the more concise target names - I don't think it
really adds anything to use variables
I disagree on concise: they're definitely shorter, but that's
because all the information is squished together, which makes it
harder to parse at a glance.
When naming Docker images we don't have much of a choice, because
we have pretty much the same restrictions as when naming files, but
that's not the case here so we could do better...
With that said, if you feel strongly about the current names I won't
stand in the way :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization