Re: [oi-dev] Issues pertaining to gcc (for tomorrow's Developer Meeting)

[Alex Viskovatoff]

On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 18:59 -0500, Richard Lowe wrote:

> illumos-gate builds with gcc3.  You need the changesets I've not yet
> integrated for gcc4.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

I must say that as far as I can tell, that just strengthens the case
against OI's shipping (your) gcc 4.4 but not a relatively pristine gcc
4.6.


> > It is a given that illumos-gate must be built with gcc 4.4, because
> > porting the patches required to get it to build to later versions of
> > gcc is a non-trivial task.
> 
> Actually, GCC 3.4 at present, which must be delivered to /usr/sfw as now.

Indeed. I think everyone is used to gcc 3.4 being in /usr/sfw. That
directory is used less nowadays anyway, so that is still a good place
for the ancient but venerable gcc 3.4.

> > Since Rich Lowe's patches are not required to build illumos-gate, if
> 
> I'm presuming this is a typo for "illumos-userland".  The patched GCC
> (either Sun's 3.4, or my 4.4) is utterly necessary for illumos-gate.

Good presumption.  :-)

> > 4. Where should the preferred gcc version reside?
> >
> > The obvious place is in /usr/bin.  Solaris 11 places symlinks to gcc
> > 4.5 there.  (OI still places symlinks to gcc 3.4.3 there; it should
> > stop doing so as quickly as possible.)
> 
> I'd put them all in /usr/gcc/X.Y.Z except for 3.4, which _must_ remain
> in /usr/sfw (possibly, it can be symlinked, but I'm not sure).
> 
> Symlink the one preferable for end users into /usr.
> 
> For automated builds, specify PATH explicitly to pick a constant and
> well-known version.

I concur on all those points (for what that's worth).

> > The gcc build of Illumos is done in such a way that Illumos should not
> > be affected by the gcc 4.6 runtime residing in /usr/lib.
> 
> We don't use libgcc in most cases, except via libstcd++.  When we do
> use libstdc++ we explicitly set the runpath ourselves.  This alone
> should be fine, but the GCC runtime's attempts at compatibility should
> also make this possible.

It sounds like you have insulated yourselves reasonably well.

> I'm willing to answer questions about illumos-gate/gcc interactions.
> I'm not interested in arguing about what distributions do, nor about
> the relative merits of various compilers.

Thanks,

Alex


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Re: [oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1

[Gordon Ross]

Thanks, Jon.

Is there anything "illumian" related that should go into this?
(i.e. prerequisites that illumian work will need?)
If not, great.  If so, let me know and I'll try to
make sure it gets attention.

Thanks,
Gordon

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jon Tibble  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I turned on the repo and made the tarball of said repo available for
> the first prestable release.  Depending on how we go porting security fixes
> to this or the rest of the community gets on sorting experimental into
> looking like a sensible oi_151a replacement will determine which becomes
> OI's first stable release.
>
> The release notes and more information can be found here:
> http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/oi_151a_prestable0+Release+Notes
>
> There won't be ISOs for this one but there will for a near future prestable.
>  The aim of these is to be more frequent so I don't think it is really worth
> producing ISOs for every release but rest assured there will be some tested
> before anything goes stable.
>
> Unless something particularly funky goes in you'll probably see illumos get
> bumped every prestable, other than that I'll welcome mainly security fixes.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> JT
>
> ___
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev@openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Re: [oi-dev] Addition of zabbix agent to oi-build

[Andrzej Szeszo]

Hi Adam

Things look OK in general. Nice work!

You define additional users and groups in the p5m manifest which you 
have not created yet. See 
 
for an example. Same with the directories. You define any new ones in 
the p5m file.


In general, the kind of software like zabbix agent should be delivered 
as 32-bit only. I doubt there will be any benefit of the 64-bit version.


Also, I think I would remove lines which define CFLAGS, 
CONFIGURE_PREFIX  and CONFIGURE_SCRIPT and use the defaults. And change 
the BUILD/INSTALL_64 to BUILD/INSTALL_32.


Thanks for working on the package.

Cheers,

Andrzej


On 01/ 9/12 12:00 AM, Adam Števko wrote:

Hello,

I have created my first package for oi-build - zabbix-agent. Zabbix is 
monitoring software used for server and service monitoring by companies all 
over the world.

I had some problems building the zabbix-agent (the problem is known to me, but 
no idea how to fix it). I found workaround, but I do not find it a proper 
solution. I would like to have the Makefile and other stuff reviewed. The 
commit can be found here: 
https://bitbucket.org/xenol/oi-build/changeset/93c7d6f187db

There are some things I would like to ask about:
- if the service needs to have some directories and user/group added to the 
system, where should I define that?
- what is the proper way to select with version to build, e.g. 64bit on 64bit 
CPU and 32bit on 32bit. I would like to take advantage of having 64bit software 
on 64bit capable CPUs.

If there are any problems regarding the Makefile, please let me know. I would 
like to fix them and have zabbix-agent added to the oi-build. When agent is 
done and committed to the oi-build, I will follow with zabbix-server and 
zabbix-proxy.

xenol
___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Re: [oi-dev] Issues pertaining to gcc (for tomorrow's Developer Meeting)

[Richard Lowe]

> (2) Although illumos-gate can be built with Rich Lowe's gcc, as far as
> I know the decision has not been made to actually use gcc to build it
> for the first stable release of OI.  I would suggest that doing so
> would be a very risky move, because we have so little experience with
> a gcc-built Illumos.  One should be cautious here, and treat a
> gcc-built Illumos as experimental for an extended period of time,
> before actually releasing it to the public.  But if Sun Studio is used
> to build Illumos, what is the advantage of building illumos-userland
> with gcc?  As noted in (1), there is a distinct disadvantage -- that
> it would be harder to keep up with upstream.

illumos-gate builds with gcc3.  You need the changesets I've not yet
integrated for gcc4.

That said, at present the people shipping illumos are building with
either the precisely correct versions of Sun Studio, or building with
gcc4 and shipping something based off of my branch.

It's up to OI whatever they choose to do.

>
> 2. Which versions of gcc should OI/Illumian ship?
>
> It is a given that illumos-gate must be built with gcc 4.4, because
> porting the patches required to get it to build to later versions of
> gcc is a non-trivial task.

Actually, GCC 3.4 at present, which must be delivered to /usr/sfw as now.

> In case Rich is not able to attend tomorrow's meeting, I'll quote what
> he said on #illumos a few minutes ago: "basically, my only view on gcc
> is 'Leave the ones used to build illumos alone, then do whatever you
> want'."

Yes.  As long as you ship 3.4 right now, and are willing to ship a 4.4
(or whatever) when I'm done pushing my branch through, I don't care
about other versions.  Note that failing to ship 3.4 will break the
illumos build on your system, which will annoy a bunch of people
(illumos people).

> 3. Which version of gcc should be preferred for building things other
>   than illumos-gate?
>
> Since Rich Lowe's patches are not required to build illumos-gate, if

I'm presuming this is a typo for "illumos-userland".  The patched GCC
(either Sun's 3.4, or my 4.4) is utterly necessary for illumos-gate.

> 4. Where should the preferred gcc version reside?
>
> The obvious place is in /usr/bin.  Solaris 11 places symlinks to gcc
> 4.5 there.  (OI still places symlinks to gcc 3.4.3 there; it should
> stop doing so as quickly as possible.)

I'd put them all in /usr/gcc/X.Y.Z except for 3.4, which _must_ remain
in /usr/sfw (possibly, it can be symlinked, but I'm not sure).

Symlink the one preferable for end users into /usr.

For automated builds, specify PATH explicitly to pick a constant and
well-known version.

>
> The gcc build of Illumos is done in such a way that Illumos should not
> be affected by the gcc 4.6 runtime residing in /usr/lib.

We don't use libgcc in most cases, except via libstcd++.  When we do
use libstdc++ we explicitly set the runpath ourselves.  This alone
should be fine, but the GCC runtime's attempts at compatibility should
also make this possible.

>
> 6. C++ library ABI incompatibility issues and how to solve them
>

This is a boring and unsolvable problem in the general case.



I'm willing to answer questions about illumos-gate/gcc interactions.
I'm not interested in arguing about what distributions do, nor about
the relative merits of various compilers.

-- Rich

___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

[oi-dev] Issues pertaining to gcc (for tomorrow's Developer Meeting)

[Alex Viskovatoff]

Hello all,

gcc is going to be discussed at tomorrow's developer meeting, so I
thought I would go over what I find to be the main issues, based on
discussion at the last two informal meetings.  The main "controversy"
seems to be whether OI/Illumian should provide only one gcc, the one
used to build illumos-gate (not counting gcc-3, which will be with us
for a long while yet), or whether it should provide that one as well
as a recent one.  I have not attempted to be impartial between those
two alternatives in what follows.


1. Should gcc be the preferred compiler for illumos-userlannd?

2. Which versions of gcc should OI/Illumian ship?

3. Which version of gcc should be preferred for building things other
   than illumos-gate?

4. Where should the preferred gcc version reside?

5. Should symlinks to gcc libs be placed in /usr/lib?

6. C++ library ABI incompatibility issues and how to solve them


1. Should gcc be the preferred compiler for illumos-userlannd?

This issue was raised at the informal discussion on #oi-meeting last
week by Milan Jurik, who has recently become more active in OI
discussions.  (To others, it may be a revisiting of this issue.)
There are two main considerations here.

(1) The upstream of userland is still Oracle, and Oracle's preferred
compiler is Sun Studio.  Thus, more work would likely be involved in
maintaining illumos-userland if the preferred compiler for it was gcc.

(2) Although illumos-gate can be built with Rich Lowe's gcc, as far as
I know the decision has not been made to actually use gcc to build it
for the first stable release of OI.  I would suggest that doing so
would be a very risky move, because we have so little experience with
a gcc-built Illumos.  One should be cautious here, and treat a
gcc-built Illumos as experimental for an extended period of time,
before actually releasing it to the public.  But if Sun Studio is used
to build Illumos, what is the advantage of building illumos-userland
with gcc?  As noted in (1), there is a distinct disadvantage -- that
it would be harder to keep up with upstream.


2. Which versions of gcc should OI/Illumian ship?

It is a given that illumos-gate must be built with gcc 4.4, because
porting the patches required to get it to build to later versions of
gcc is a non-trivial task.  But 4.4 is an old version of gcc.  The
experience of the SFE project is that an unpatched gcc 4.6.2 (the
current stable release) is perfectly capable of building a wide range
of software (Qt 4.7, Boost, Inkscape, Gnote).  In addition, there is
already some GNU software which _requires_ gcc not older than 4.6 to
build.  (MKVToolnix is an example; there are probably others.)
Finally, people coming to OI from the GNU/Linux world would be taken
aback if OI does not ship gcc 4.6.

One last consideration is that the default gcc in Solaris 11 is gcc
4.5.  OI/Illumos choosing 4.4 would thus create the impression that
Illumos is behind Oracle.  Choosing 4.6 would create the opposite
impression.

Userland Makefiles for gcc 4.5 have already been modified to build gcc
4.6.2.  If it is decided not to include gcc 4.6.2 in illumos-userland,
oi-sfe could continue to provide it.  But would it really make sense
to delegate the current stable release of the compiler most commonly
used in the Unix/Linux world to an extras repository?

In case Rich is not able to attend tomorrow's meeting, I'll quote what
he said on #illumos a few minutes ago: "basically, my only view on gcc
is 'Leave the ones used to build illumos alone, then do whatever you
want'."


3. Which version of gcc should be preferred for building things other
   than illumos-gate?

Since Rich Lowe's patches are not required to build illumos-gate, if
illumos-userland provided gcc 4.6, would there be any good reason to
use gcc 4.4 and not gcc 4.6 to build illumos-userland (provided that
gcc is the preferred compiler for this, as discussed in (1) above)?
I am not aware of any.  For everything else, gcc 4.6 should clearly be
the preferred gcc version, since that is what Linux distributions are
already at or at least moving toward.  To repeat, it is the current
stable release, and it has a proven track record on OI.


4. Where should the preferred gcc version reside?

The obvious place is in /usr/bin.  Solaris 11 places symlinks to gcc
4.5 there.  (OI still places symlinks to gcc 3.4.3 there; it should
stop doing so as quickly as possible.)

There is the additional issue of how the symlinks should be
implemented.  The corresponding IPS actions can go in the gcc-4.4/4.6
package itself, or there could be separate packages which only deliver
the symlinks.  The best solution would probably be pkg(1) mediators,
but that would require further investigation.


5. Should symlinks to gcc libs be placed in /usr/lib?

gcc 3.4.3 did not place its libraries libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++.so.6
into a standard location searched by the runtime linker.  Instead, it
patched gcc to add the location of its libraries to a shared object's

Re: [oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1

[estibi]

Thanks!

On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Jon Tibble wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today I turned on the repo and made the tarball of said repo available for 
> the first prestable release.  Depending on how we go porting security fixes 
> to this or the rest of the community gets on sorting experimental into 
> looking like a sensible oi_151a replacement will determine which becomes OI's 
> first stable release.
> 
> The release notes and more information can be found here:
> http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/oi_151a_prestable0+Release+Notes
> 
> There won't be ISOs for this one but there will for a near future prestable.  
> The aim of these is to be more frequent so I don't think it is really worth 
> producing ISOs for every release but rest assured there will be some tested 
> before anything goes stable.
> 
> Unless something particularly funky goes in you'll probably see illumos get 
> bumped every prestable, other than that I'll welcome mainly security fixes.
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> JT
> 
> ___
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev@openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

--
Piotr Jasiukajtis


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Re: [oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1

[Lou Picciano]

Super, Jon! 

Tks for the hard work. This is encouraging. Lou Picciano 

- Original Message -
From: "Jon Tibble"  
To: "Developer list for OpenIndiana"  
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:58:34 PM 
Subject: [oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1 

Hi all, 

Today I turned on the repo and made the tarball of said repo available 
for the first prestable release. Depending on how we go porting 
security fixes to this or the rest of the community gets on sorting 
experimental into looking like a sensible oi_151a replacement will 
determine which becomes OI's first stable release. 

The release notes and more information can be found here: 
http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/oi_151a_prestable0+Release+Notes 

There won't be ISOs for this one but there will for a near future 
prestable. The aim of these is to be more frequent so I don't think it 
is really worth producing ISOs for every release but rest assured there 
will be some tested before anything goes stable. 

Unless something particularly funky goes in you'll probably see illumos 
get bumped every prestable, other than that I'll welcome mainly security 
fixes. 

Enjoy, 

JT 

___ 
oi-dev mailing list 
oi-dev@openindiana.org 
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev 
___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

Re: [oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1

[Alasdair Lumsden]

Nice work JT!

This is very promising indeed :-)

On 16 Jan 2012, at 19:58, Jon Tibble wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today I turned on the repo and made the tarball of said repo available for 
> the first prestable release.  Depending on how we go porting security fixes 
> to this or the rest of the community gets on sorting experimental into 
> looking like a sensible oi_151a replacement will determine which becomes OI's 
> first stable release.
> 
> The release notes and more information can be found here:
> http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/oi_151a_prestable0+Release+Notes
> 
> There won't be ISOs for this one but there will for a near future prestable.  
> The aim of these is to be more frequent so I don't think it is really worth 
> producing ISOs for every release but rest assured there will be some tested 
> before anything goes stable.
> 
> Unless something particularly funky goes in you'll probably see illumos get 
> bumped every prestable, other than that I'll welcome mainly security fixes.
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> JT
> 
> ___
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev@openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

[oi-dev] New prestable release - oi_151a1 0.151.1.1

[Jon Tibble]

Hi all,

Today I turned on the repo and made the tarball of said repo available 
for the first prestable release.  Depending on how we go porting 
security fixes to this or the rest of the community gets on sorting 
experimental into looking like a sensible oi_151a replacement will 
determine which becomes OI's first stable release.


The release notes and more information can be found here:
http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/oi_151a_prestable0+Release+Notes

There won't be ISOs for this one but there will for a near future 
prestable.  The aim of these is to be more frequent so I don't think it 
is really worth producing ISOs for every release but rest assured there 
will be some tested before anything goes stable.


Unless something particularly funky goes in you'll probably see illumos 
get bumped every prestable, other than that I'll welcome mainly security 
fixes.


Enjoy,

JT

___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

[oi-dev] pkg5 improvements

[Andrzej Szeszo]

Hi All

I have re-started getting current pkg5 codebase in shape few days ago.

I wanted to get zone support working better on top of 
illumos/OpenIndiana. It is still work in progress but linked images and 
system repository stuff seems to work OK.


I need to prevent scripts from creating zone boot environments still as 
illumos doesn't support that (rpool/zones/zone1/ROOT/zbe-1, zbe-2, 
etc.). Alternative would be to add such support. I have not looked at it 
yet.


The code lives here: https://github.com/aszeszo/pkg5

You can check it out using git or mercurial (with hg-git extension enabled):

git clone git://github.com/aszeszo/pkg5.git
hg clone git://github.com/aszeszo/pkg5.git

And then build it and generate packages by running:

cd src && make install && cd pkg && make install

Oh, one file needs to be edited manually to get linked images working 
(it is part of illumos-gate):


--- /usr/lib/brand/ipkg/config.xml.origMon Jan 16 18:08:42 2012
+++ /usr/lib/brand/ipkg/config.xmlMon Jan 16 18:08:09 2012
@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@

/usr/lib/brand/ipkg/pkgcreatezone -z %z -R %R
a:c:d:e:hk:P:p:suv
- 
+ /usr/lib/brand/ipkg/boot %z %R
/usr/lib/brand/ipkg/prestate %z %R 2 0
- 
+ /usr/lib/brand/ipkg/halt %z %R




Cheers,

Andrzej


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev

[oi-dev] Weekly Meeting on Tuesday Jan 17th at 19:00 UTC

[Bayard G. Bell]

Please note that this is an earlier slot to allow contributors in Russia
to participate. The only item already on the agenda is gcc for use in
illumos-userland (aka oi-build). We can take other items, as long as
they're brief, as this one is likely to be long.

I've CC'ed Rich Lowe individually, as there are a number of us who would
appreciate any expertise he can offer on the work he's been doing to get
a patched gcc 4.4 to build illumos-gate. As time allows, I'll send out
notes on preliminary discussions of gcc support issues at recent
meetings.


___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev