Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Linda Walsh]

Unpacked 2.6.13.3 and made it read-only.

Using the "O=" param, built output tree for another machine as
a non-root user.

I wanted to create an installable kernel & module package to copy
to the new machine & install.

I noted new targets:
    binrpm-pkg [& rpm-pkg], and
    tarbz2-pkg [& targz-pkg, & tar-pkg].

Both seem to fail either for reasons that appear to be related to
not honoring the "O=" param, or attempting to actually install into
the root of my build-machine.

Should these targets work or have they not yet been converted to work
within the "O=" framework?  In cases where the Makefile is attempting
to install into "<Root>/boot" or "<Root>/lib/modules" ,should I
expect the output to appear in "$O/boot" and "$O/lib/modules/"?

Please Cc responses to me, in addition to list, thanks.

-linda

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-12-18 15:27:20 -0800, Linda Walsh <lkml@tlinx.org> wrote:
> Unpacked 2.6.13.3 and made it read-only.

> I noted new targets:
>    binrpm-pkg [& rpm-pkg], and
>    tarbz2-pkg [& targz-pkg, & tar-pkg].
> 
> Both seem to fail either for reasons that appear to be related to
> not honoring the "O=" param, or attempting to actually install into
> the root of my build-machine.

I've not really used out-of-tree building for Linux, so the tar*
targets are probably not really tested with that regard. Though I'll
check that and see if it works (of if a patch is needed.)

The RPM targets have to be tested by somebody else :)

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger"  | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Linda Walsh]

Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

>
>I've not really used out-of-tree building for Linux, so the tar*
>targets are probably not really tested with that regard. Though I'll
>check that and see if it works (of if a patch is needed.)
>
>The RPM targets have to be tested by somebody else :)
>
---
Thanks -- the error I got for the "tar"-based images started as:

ishtar:/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3> make  V=1 INSTALL_ROOT= 
../build/ast-root O=../build/ast-26143/ tarbz2-pkg 
make -C /home/build/ast-26143 \
KBUILD_SRC=/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3 \
KBUILD_EXTMOD="" -f /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/Makefile ../build/ast-root
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/../build/ast-root'.
make -C /home/build/ast-26143 \
KBUILD_SRC=/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3 \
KBUILD_EXTMOD="" -f /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/Makefile tarbz2-pkg
make -f /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/scripts/package/Makefile tarbz2-pkg
make
make -C /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3 O=/home/build/ast-26143
Makefile:484: .config: No such file or directory
  Using /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3 as source for kernel
if [ -f /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/.config ]; then \
        echo "  /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3 is not clean, please run 'make 
mrproper'";\
        echo "  in the '/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3' directory.";\
        /bin/false; \
fi;
if [ ! -d include2 ]; then mkdir -p include2; fi;
mkdir: cannot create directory `include2': Permission denied
make[4]: *** [prepare3] Error 1
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: *** [tarbz2-pkg] Error 2
make[1]: *** [tarbz2-pkg] Error 2
make: *** [tarbz2-pkg] Error 2
==========

Briefly, the make rpm-pagage options call "make install" and
"make modules_install".  Both attempt to install the kernel
for the "target" system onto the the "Build" system.  This isn't
desired as the "target" kernel won't even run on the "build"
system.

I could supply error listings, but it seems unneeded as it is
so easily reproduced.

I see JanB is on the making "tar" image, but how long ago was
building of the rpm stuff done?  Is it the case that the designer/writer
of that hasn't had time to make it work with the "O=" param?  Is
someone still actively maintaining those targets?

Ideally it would be good to be able to make an installable kernel
package as a non-root user.  The idea is to not need root-privs
except to install, right? :-)

Linda


 

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 14:12:27 -0800, Linda Walsh <lkml@tlinx.org> wrote:
> Ideally it would be good to be able to make an installable kernel
> package as a non-root user.  The idea is to not need root-privs
> except to install, right? :-)

That's how it is ment to be. Actually, for in-tree builds, you get the
tarball without first becoming root. I'll fix that soon, as I find
some spare minute to hack it :)

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger"  | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Linda Walsh]

Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:

>That's how it is ment to be. Actually, for in-tree builds, you get the
>tarball without first becoming root.
>
---
    So I see.  Slight minor possible "nit".
I have a suffix (CONFIG_LOCALVERSION) set.
While the tar picks up the /lib/modules files in <ver>-suffix, the
map and vm files all have suffixes w/o the "localversion" appended.
This doesn't seem desirable, eh?:

ishtar:/usr/src/ast-26144> tar tf linux-2.6.14.4.tar |more   
./
./boot/
./boot/System.map-2.6.14.4
./boot/config-2.6.14.4
./boot/vmlinux-2.6.14.4
./boot/vmlinuz-2.6.14.4
./lib/
./lib/modules/
./lib/modules/2.6.14.4-ast/
./lib/modules/2.6.14.4-ast/kernel/
./lib/modules/2.6.14.4-ast/kernel/crypto/
....

> I'll fix that soon, as I find
>some spare minute to hack it :)
>
---
S'okey...I can at least use the above to xfer files over for now...

tnx,
Linda

patch for "scripts/package/buildtar" to pickup "localversion" on "/boot" file objects

[Linda A. Walsh]

Linda Walsh wrote:

> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>
>> That's how it is ment to be. Actually, for in-tree builds, you get the
>> tarball without first becoming root.
>>
> ---
> Slight minor possible "nit".
> I have a suffix (CONFIG_LOCALVERSION) set.
> While buildtar picks up the /lib/modules files in <ver>-suffix, the
> map and vm files all have suffixes w/o the "localversion" appended.

---
BTW -- here is a "quick" patch to pick up the "local version" to append to
the files in "/boot" for the "tar[x]-pkg's"...

--- scripts/package/buildtar.orig       2005-11-24 14:10:21.000000000 -0800
+++ scripts/package/buildtar    2005-12-29 22:26:34.543513254 -0800
@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
 #
 # Some variables and settings used throughout the script
 #
-version="${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL}.${SUBLEVEL}${EXTRAVERSION}${EXTRANAME}"
+version="$(grep UTS_RELEASE include/linux/version.h| \
+       sed 's/^#[^"]*"// ; s/"$// ')"
 tmpdir="${objtree}/tar-install"
 tarball="${objtree}/linux-${version}.tar"
 

>

Re: patch for "scripts/package/buildtar" to pickup "localversion" on "/boot" file objects

[Erik Mouw]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 10:33:16PM -0800, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> BTW -- here is a "quick" patch to pick up the "local version" to append to
> the files in "/boot" for the "tar[x]-pkg's"...
> 
> --- scripts/package/buildtar.orig       2005-11-24 14:10:21.000000000 -0800
> +++ scripts/package/buildtar    2005-12-29 22:26:34.543513254 -0800
> @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
> #
> # Some variables and settings used throughout the script
> #
> -version="${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL}.${SUBLEVEL}${EXTRAVERSION}${EXTRANAME}"
> +version="$(grep UTS_RELEASE include/linux/version.h| \
> +       sed 's/^#[^"]*"// ; s/"$// ')"

A much easier way is to use:

  version="${KERNELRELEASE}"

A patch for this is already in -mm, I expect/hope Linus will pick it up
after 2.6.15.


Erik

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: patch for "scripts/package/buildtar" to pickup "localversion" on "/boot" file objects

[Linda A. Walsh]

Erik Mouw wrote:

>A much easier way is to use:
>
>  version="${KERNELRELEASE}"
>
>A patch for this is already in -mm, I expect/hope Linus will pick it up
>after 2.6.15.
>  
>
---
Cool!  Easier is good! :-)
-linda

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Nix]

On 19 Dec 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw stated:
> I've not really used out-of-tree building for Linux, so the tar*
> targets are probably not really tested with that regard. Though I'll
> check that and see if it works (of if a patch is needed.)

Given the existence of `cp -al', I'm not quite sure what the point of
out-of-tree building *is*. (I'm equally mystified by srcdir!=objdir
builds; I can see their utility for software with many generated files
and multi-stage bootstraps, like GCC, 'cos they simplify the makefiles,
but for normal software? What's the point?)

I mean, instead of

cd linux-2.6.blah
make blah O=/some/directory

you can always do

cp -al linux-2.6.blah /some/directory/
cd /some/directory
make blah

unless you're so short of space that you can't store the object files
and the source files on the same disk, and that should be a *very* rare
complaint with today's disk sizes.

-- 
`I must caution that dipping fingers into molten lead
 presents several serious dangers.' --- Jearl Walker

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:41:04PM +0000, Nix wrote:
> but for normal software? What's the point?)
> 
> I mean, instead of
> 
> cd linux-2.6.blah
> make blah O=/some/directory
> 
> you can always do
> 
> cp -al linux-2.6.blah /some/directory/
> cd /some/directory
> make blah

Consider following use cases:
1) Src located on NFS mounted filesystem
2) Src on RO media
3) Src on another filesystem
4) Builds for several architectures from same source base
5) Builds for several different configurations
etc.

It is convinient in many places. Maybe not for you but for others.

	Sam

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Nix]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Sam Ravnborg said:
> Consider following use cases:
> 1) Src located on NFS mounted filesystem

Nothing wrong with that. NFS is fast for me.

(Admittedly, on heavily contended networks you're right.)

> 2) Src on RO media

*Good* reason (one that unionfs would solve, but still...)

> 4) Builds for several architectures from same source base

cp -al

> 5) Builds for several different configurations

cp -al

> It is convinient in many places. Maybe not for you but for others.

There were a couple of compelling arguments in there. :)

-- 
`I must caution that dipping fingers into molten lead
 presents several serious dangers.' --- Jearl Walker

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:44:10PM +0000, Nix wrote:
> cp -al
$ time cp -al linux-2.6 nix
real 0m5.360s

That was second time I did it. It took considerably longer the first
time when nothing was in cache.

	Sam

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:44:10PM +0000, Nix wrote:
> > 4) Builds for several architectures from same source base
> 
> cp -al
> 
> > 5) Builds for several different configurations
> 
> cp -al

... apply a patch and watch the resync hell.  That really, really doesn't
work well enough for use when doing any kind of development.

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Nix]

On 20 Dec 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:44:10PM +0000, Nix wrote:
>> > 4) Builds for several architectures from same source base
>> 
>> cp -al
>> 
>> > 5) Builds for several different configurations
>> 
>> cp -al
> 
> ... apply a patch and watch the resync hell.  That really, really doesn't
> work well enough for use when doing any kind of development.

Well, personally I handle patch-application in cp -al'ed trees by doing
cp -al via a script, and repatching all currently hardlinked trees
(obviously if they are very divergent some patches will fail and I'll
have to fix them up by hand).

It works for me well enough to keep hardlinked branches going for in
some cases years without problems.

(On top of that, I've sometimes considered a switch to patch(1) that
switches to truncate-and-rewrite rather than unlink-and-replace. Haven't
implemented it yet though.)


(And if you're using this to maintain development branches, then you
have resync and conflict-management problems *anyway*, which this makes
no worse.)

-- 
`I must caution that dipping fingers into molten lead
 presents several serious dangers.' --- Jearl Walker

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:49:20AM +0000, Nix wrote:
> Well, personally I handle patch-application in cp -al'ed trees by doing
> cp -al via a script, and repatching all currently hardlinked trees
> (obviously if they are very divergent some patches will fail and I'll
> have to fix them up by hand).

... then you edit a file to fix a typo, and have a _nice_ day next Friday
when you notice that stuff got out of sync.

> It works for me well enough to keep hardlinked branches going for in
> some cases years without problems.
> 
> (On top of that, I've sometimes considered a switch to patch(1) that
> switches to truncate-and-rewrite rather than unlink-and-replace. Haven't
> implemented it yet though.)
> 
> 
> (And if you're using this to maintain development branches, then you
> have resync and conflict-management problems *anyway*, which this makes
> no worse.)

Yes, but it's easier to deal with when the number of your repositories
doesn't get multiplied by factor of 20 or so...

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Nix]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Al Viro stated:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:49:20AM +0000, Nix wrote:
>> Well, personally I handle patch-application in cp -al'ed trees by doing
>> cp -al via a script, and repatching all currently hardlinked trees
>> (obviously if they are very divergent some patches will fail and I'll
>> have to fix them up by hand).
> 
> ... then you edit a file to fix a typo, and have a _nice_ day next Friday
> when you notice that stuff got out of sync.

Your text editor is insufficiently flexible. Mine can snap hardlinks
automatically when st_nlink > 1. :)

(But let's avoid editor wars. I'm sure there's a magic way vim can be
coerced into doing things properly.)


What we really need is an FS that does behind-the-scenes block CoW
and/or block merging anyway; then we could just cp -a the damn tree
and keep the space savings.

>> (And if you're using this to maintain development branches, then you
>> have resync and conflict-management problems *anyway*, which this makes
>> no worse.)
> 
> Yes, but it's easier to deal with when the number of your repositories
> doesn't get multiplied by factor of 20 or so...

Er, I don't have a factor of 20 more repositories than anyone else. (I
don't have the disk space for that!)

-- 
`I must caution that dipping fingers into molten lead
 presents several serious dangers.' --- Jearl Walker

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Sean]

On Wed, December 21, 2005 2:49 am, Nix said:

> Well, personally I handle patch-application in cp -al'ed trees by doing
> cp -al via a script, and repatching all currently hardlinked trees
> (obviously if they are very divergent some patches will fail and I'll
> have to fix them up by hand).
>
> It works for me well enough to keep hardlinked branches going for in
> some cases years without problems.

Well the O= syntax is much nicer when using Git.   You symply checkout the
branch you're interested in and compile it; then switch to another,
compile it, etc...  Git makes checking out a brach lightning fast, it's
very slick.   Using the O= notation means you only have one branch checked
out at a time and there's no need to have source files linked to a bunch
of different directories.

Cheers,
Sean

Re: Makefile targets: tar & rpm pkgs, while using O=<dir> as non-root

[Ryan Anderson]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:27:20PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Unpacked 2.6.13.3 and made it read-only.
> 
> Using the "O=" param, built output tree for another machine as
> a non-root user.
> 
> I wanted to create an installable kernel & module package to copy
> to the new machine & install.
> 
> I noted new targets:
>    binrpm-pkg [& rpm-pkg], and
>    tarbz2-pkg [& targz-pkg, & tar-pkg].
> 
> Both seem to fail either for reasons that appear to be related to
> not honoring the "O=" param, or attempting to actually install into
> the root of my build-machine.
> 
> Should these targets work or have they not yet been converted to work
> within the "O=" framework?  In cases where the Makefile is attempting
> to install into "<Root>/boot" or "<Root>/lib/modules" ,should I
> expect the output to appear in "$O/boot" and "$O/lib/modules/"?

Look at the "deb" target for how this was fixed for building Debian
(-style) packages.

Specifically, you want to change:
	$(MAKE)
to
	$(MAKE) KBUILD_SRC=

At a glance, I don't see a similar problem in the binrpm-pkg target, and
I don't understand the rpm target at all, so those may have other
issues.

I am, however, looking at 2.6.15-rc{something}, not 2.6.13, but I think
it's been a while since Sam sent the deb packages fixes upstream.

-- 

Ryan Anderson
  sometimes Pug Majere