Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On 18/01/17 13:12, Sergio Schvezov wrote: After a quick but thorough conversation with Gustavo we agreed that this is the wrong path to take as it might not be deterministic or people might get surprised about things included that shouldn't have been. There needs to be a clear line between `build-packages` and `stage-packages`. With that in mind snapcraft (even for `strict` snaps) will still crawl all the libraries and error on missing ones with a list of those that are missing. This should be something one can disable and set to ignore as some of the missing libraries might be provided by a content interface slot from another snap. Well, I'm glad that my question may have led to a more rigorous and consistent definition of desired snapcraft behaviour, even if it means a slightly longer snapcraft.yaml ... :-) -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On 18/01/17 02:21, Sergio Schvezov wrote: The logic is still run, but the resulting binary in classic uses rpath and no dynamic loading so there is no resolution to a on-system library we can pick up. I guess we can do some magic, but it feels it might be either fragile or make the build process a lot slower. We will need to look into it, but not short term. OK -- thanks for the explanation. Completely understand the preference to require explicit staging of packages over potentially fragile automation. Anyway, I had a go at tweaking my snap package as defined here: https://github.com/WebDrake/ldc2.snap/pull/1/files https://github.com/WebDrake/ldc2.snap/blob/a437ec17d50bdd767febebf5b617d7d3a716716b/snapcraft.yaml ... to use `classic` confinement and staging packages necessary for linking. I've posted the resulting `snapcraft.yaml` below. The major diff apart from the `confinement` setting is the addition of these lines to the `ldc` part of the file: stage-packages: - libconfig++-dev - libphobos2-ldc-dev When I run `snapcraft build`, however, everything builds and links fine, but _nothing_ gets staged (the `stage/` and `prime/` directories both remain empty). I've tried the same thing while removing the `gcc`, `gcc-wrapper`, `libc6` and `libc6-dev` parts, with the same result. Any thoughts on what could be the problem here? --- snapcraft.yaml -- name: ldc2 version: "1.1.0-beta6" summary: D compiler with LLVM backend description: | LDC is a portable compiler for the D programming Language, with modern optimization and code generation capabilities. It uses the official DMD compiler frontend to support the latest version of D2, and uses the LLVM Core libraries for code generation. confinement: classic grade: devel apps: ldc2: command: ldc2 plugs: [home] ldmd2: command: ldmd2 plugs: [home] ldc-profdata: command: ldc-profdata plugs: [home] parts: ldc: source: git://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc.git source-tag: v1.1.0-beta6 plugin: cmake stage: - -etc/ldc2.conf build-packages: - build-essential - ldc - llvm-dev - libconfig++-dev - libedit-dev - zlib1g-dev stage-packages: - libconfig++-dev - libphobos2-ldc-dev ldc-config: plugin: dump source: ldc-config organize: ldc2.conf: etc/ldc2.conf gcc: plugin: nil stage-packages: [gcc] organize: usr/bin/gcc: usr/bin/gcc.real gcc-wrapper: plugin: dump source: gcc-wrapper organize: gcc.wrapper: usr/bin/gcc libc6: plugin: nil stage-packages: [libc6] libc6-dev: plugin: nil stage-packages: [libc6-dev] -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:17:27 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote: > > > > > Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term > behaviour? (I'll try it out shortly in any case.) > > I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build > dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically > included in the > final snap where necessary. What makes `classic` confinement unable to > automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way? After a quick but thorough conversation with Gustavo we agreed that this is the wrong path to take as it might not be deterministic or people might get surprised about things included that shouldn't have been. There needs to be a clear line between `build-packages` and `stage-packages`. With that in mind snapcraft (even for `strict` snaps) will still crawl all the libraries and error on missing ones with a list of those that are missing. This should be something one can disable and set to ignore as some of the missing libraries might be provided by a content interface slot from another snap. -- Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:58:00 -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Hi Sergio, > > The question asked was actually how to get snapcraft to include > dependencies *inside the snap* so that it works as it does with strict > snaps, bundling the dependencies. > > Your response was about system libraries rather than bundled > in-snap libraries, I believe. > > This should definitely work fine, right? Yes, there is a gotcha though wrt the question asked. Using `build-packages`, which install on the host -the usual `-dev` ones- means that the libraries they bring in need to be added as `stage-packages`. We added an optimization here where we crawl all elf files in `prime` and `ldd` them to see if anything would resolve outside the snap and bring those libraries in. This is not as easy with classic confinement as all those elf files are runpathed. I have slept on it though and think there is a way to do it, but it won't be as straightforward. -- Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
Hi Sergio, The question asked was actually how to get snapcraft to include dependencies *inside the snap* so that it works as it does with strict snaps, bundling the dependencies. Your response was about system libraries rather than bundled in-snap libraries, I believe. This should definitely work fine, right? On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Sergio Schvezov < sergio.schve...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:17:27 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote: > > > > > > > > Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term > > behaviour? (I'll try it out shortly in any case.) > > > > I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build > > dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically > > included in the > > final snap where necessary. What makes `classic` confinement unable to > > automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way? > > The logic is still run, but the resulting binary in classic uses rpath and > no dynamic loading so there is no resolution to a on-system library we can > pick up. I guess we can do some magic, but it feels it might be either > fragile or make the build process a lot slower. We will need to look into > it, but not short term. > > -- > Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device > > -- > Snapcraft mailing list > Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/snapcraft > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On 17/01/17 22:22, Sergio Schvezov wrote: For classic confined snaps to link, they either need to be part of core or staged into your snap. On system libraries are ignored completely to ensure you have a working snap in the end. Is that a work in progress constraint, or is it the intended long term behaviour? (I'll try it out shortly in any case.) I ask because currently, if a package is explicitly stated as a build dependency, then with `strict` confinement it's automatically included in the final snap where necessary. What makes `classic` confinement unable to automatically handle the inclusion of build dependencies in the same way? -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:11:57 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 14/01/17 03:26, Sergio Schvezov wrote: >> A generic solution for build systems and CI is being worked on. >> >> Thanks for taking notice. > > Ah, OK, thanks. Please do ping me if there is work-in-progress > I can help to > test. I'd be happy to help out if I can. > > Can you shed light on the reason for the linker errors I get when trying to > build a `classic` snap using regular `snapcraft build`? See: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/2017-January/002483.html > > ... for details. Do I assume right here that the problem is > along the lines > that the libraries concerned are not part of the core snap, and > therefore the > core_dynamic_linker cannot access them, even though they are > installed on my > machine via apt? For classic confined snaps to link, they either need to be part of core or staged into your snap. On system libraries are ignored completely to ensure you have a working snap in the end. The `core_dynamic_linker` error message has been improved in 2.25 which is making its way into the -updates' pockets for the current supported series in Ubuntu. -- Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
El 13 ene. 2017 10:47 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> escribió: Hello all, Hearing about classic confinement was rather exciting given that it seems tailor-made for the use-cases of my current WiP snaps for the ldc2 D compiler and the dub D build system: https://github.com/WebDrake/ldc2.snap/pull/1 https://github.com/WebDrake/dub.snap/pull/1 However, I'm running into difficulties every time I try to do a `snapcraft cleanbuild`: part-way through the build process I invariably get an error: classic confinement requires the core_dynamic_linker to be set I've discovered and tried the proposed workaround here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapcraft/+bug/1650946/comments/11 ... but it seems to make no difference. Can anyone advise what else needs to be done to build a package with `classic` confinement? A generic solution for build systems and CI is being worked on. Thanks for taking notice. -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Re: Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
On 13/01/17 23:18, Kyle Fazzari wrote: Since you're using cleanbuild, you would actually need the core snap installed in the lxc container being used, which I don't think is currently possible in lxc (though maybe it is nowadays, I know work was being done in that area). Have you tried _not_ doing this in cleanbuild, on a system with the core snap installed? Ah, thanks. I did consider that but thought it would be a bit odd for a new feature to come without a cleanbuild of it being possible. Anyway, doing a regular `snapcraft build` means the `core_dynamic_linker` error vanishes, but this time I get linker errors when building LDC: error while loading shared libraries: libconfig.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory `libconfig++-dev` and `libconfig-dev` are both installed along with their dependencies (libconfig++-dev is specified as a build dependency), and I _don't_ get this linker error when confinement is set to `strict`. -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
Classic confinement and core_dynamic_linker
Hello all, Hearing about classic confinement was rather exciting given that it seems tailor-made for the use-cases of my current WiP snaps for the ldc2 D compiler and the dub D build system: https://github.com/WebDrake/ldc2.snap/pull/1 https://github.com/WebDrake/dub.snap/pull/1 However, I'm running into difficulties every time I try to do a `snapcraft cleanbuild`: part-way through the build process I invariably get an error: classic confinement requires the core_dynamic_linker to be set I've discovered and tried the proposed workaround here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapcraft/+bug/1650946/comments/11 ... but it seems to make no difference. Can anyone advise what else needs to be done to build a package with `classic` confinement? My system is Ubuntu 16.04 with snapcraft 2.24 and snapd 2.20.1 (both installed from the normal Ubuntu apt repos). Thanks & best wishes, -- Joe -- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
