9:52 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:04:16PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 11:00 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Debian's filesystem layout has a nice advantage over Fedora which is
> that it can install non-native RPMs
s/RPMs/packages/ ;)
[...]
> guests/host_vars/libvirt-debian-9/main.yml | 44 +++++++++++++
> guests/host_vars/libvirt-debian-sid/main.yml | 45 ++++++++++++++
> guests/lcitool | 65 +++++++++++++++++++-
> guests/vars/mappings.yml | 59 ++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
It would be great if the changes to code and inventory were in
separate commits. It should be trivial to split: just add the new
information to the inventory first, and code relying on them being
present last.
[...]
> +++ b/guests/host_vars/libvirt-debian-9/main.yml
> @@ -21,3 +21,47 @@ os_name: 'Debian'
> os_version: '9'
>
> ansible_python_interpreter: /usr/bin/python3
> +
> +arches:
> + aarch64:
> + package_arch: arm64
> + abi: aarch64-linux-gnu
> + cross_gcc: gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu
We previously agreed to store this information in cross-build.yml
rather than main.yml, and that's what it looked like in v3... Can
you please move it back there?
I moved it back here as the pacakge_arch / abi fields are not
specific to cross builds. They're general information about the
distro / toolchain...
but this all goes away with a static mapping in the code instead
so it doesn't matter.
I also questioned a few respins back whether we need to have the
Debian 9 configuration at all. For MinGW builds we use Fedora Rawhide
as the base, so using Debian Sid for cross-builds would make sense,
especially since it supports more target architectures: we are only
going to build a single set of buildenv-cross-* container images
anyway...
What we do with MinGW right now is not a good example to follow.
There are enough differences betweeen software versions that I
see failures building on stable Fedora that don't appear on
rawhide & vica-versa. This is particularly causing me pain for
virt-viewer release builds as the msi build process is frequently
failing due to changed DLL versions. So when I add MSI builds to
the CI, I'll want MinGW packages across mulitple distro versions.
The other problem is that both rawhide & sid are rolling unstable
distros which break. Right now I can't even test the cross arch
builds on Sid because some recent update has broken the ability
to install the cross compiler toolchain at all. So only supporting
the unstable Sid is not a good idea.
> + i686:
> + package_arch: i386
> + abi: i686-linux-gnu
> + cross_gcc: gcc-i686-linux-gnu
The value of 'abi' doesn't look right: based on eg.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/libglib2.0-dev/filelist
it should be 'i386-linux-gnu' instead.
The 'abi' is what is prefixed on the toolchain binaries,
and so for this purpose i686-linux-gnu is actually correct:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/amd64/gcc-i686-linux-gnu/filelist
The value of 'cross_gcc', though, is unfortunately correct,
which
means that in this case we can't automatically figure out the name
of the cross-compiler package from the ABI like I described above.
Bummer :(
Actually we can.
[...]
> +++ b/guests/lcitool
> @@ -367,6 +367,10 @@ class Application:
>
> add_hosts_arg(dockerfileparser)
> add_projects_arg(dockerfileparser)
> + dockerfileparser.add_argument(
> + "-x", "--cross-arch",
> + help="cross compiler architecture",
> + )
You added the add_gitrev_arg() helper for --git-revision despite the
fact that it's only used by a single action, so it would make sense
to have add_crossarch_arg() here for consistency.
[...]
> @@ -537,10 +541,23 @@ class Application:
> os_name = facts["os_name"]
> os_version = facts["os_version"]
> os_full = os_name + os_version
> + cross_facts = None
You initialize 'cross_facts' here...
[...]
> + if args.cross_arch is not None:
> + if "arches" not in facts:
> + raise Error("Non x86_64 arches not supported for this
host")
> + if args.cross_arch not in facts["arches"]:
> + raise Error("Arch {} not supported for this
host".format(
> + args.cross_arch))
> + if "cross_gcc" not in
facts["arches"][args.cross_arch]:
> + raise Error("Arch {} cross compiler not supported for this
host".format
> + (args.cross_arch))
> +
> + cross_build_facts = facts["arches"][args.cross_arch]
... but then set 'cross_build_facts' and use the latter from here
on. And this is why dynamic languages are so much fun! O:-)
I'd stick with 'cross_facts' for the variable name, since we already
have 'pkgs'/'cross_pkgs' and 'keys'/'cross_keys'.
This dict goes away if we use a static mapping table.
[...]
> @@ -80,6 +84,7 @@ mappings:
>
> avahi:
> deb: libavahi-client-dev
> + deb-cross-arch: foreign
> pkg: avahi
> rpm: avahi-devel
So, I'll come right out and say that I don't love the idea of storing
this information in the mappings file. That said, doing so allows us
to reuse a lot of existing infrastructure and I don't really have a
better alternative to offer at the moment, so let's just do it this
way :)
The compelling reason for using mappings.xml is that it provides a
single source of information for packages. This way when adding new
packages to the list, it is more likely we'll remember to add the
right cross arch info at the same time.
One last point is about the possible values: 'skip' and
'native' are
perfectly intuitive, but I feel like 'foreign' is not that great a
name, and it also already has a meaning in the context of Debian's
Multi-Arch implementation which might muddy the waters for people.
I think 'cross' would be a better value.
"foreign" is the logical inverse of "native", so I think it is
actually the right word to use here. "cross" is misleading as
we're not installing a cross-built package, we're installing
the native built package from the foreign architecture.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|