Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 11. 11. 20 v 3:19 Pavel Valena napsal(a):

----- Original Message -----

From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com>
To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:19:38 PM
Subject: Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

Wow, it has been year since I started this thread. Time flies.

But since I was fighting again with one revert, which was not possible
to do without boostrapping, I went ahead and now I have this PR:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/72

Looks Great!

Although I don't see any comment on    
0001-Revert-Add-GC.auto_compact-true-false-and-GC.auto_co.patch

  - The patch doesn't seem maintainable. (Am I wrong?)
  - What it's exactly needed for? (Trim miniruby dependencies?)

~~~

+ /usr/bin/make -O -j8 V=1 VERBOSE=1 'COPY=cp -p' Q=

    CC = gcc
    LD = ld
    LDSHARED = gcc -shared

    CPPFLAGS =

    SOLIBS = -lpthread -lrt -lrt -lgmp -ldl -lcrypt -lm
    LANG = C
    LC_ALL =
    LC_CTYPE =
    MFLAGS = -j8 -Otarget --jobserver-auth=4,5
gcc (GCC) 10.2.1 20201016 (Red Hat 10.2.1-6)
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


executable host ruby is required. use --with-baseruby option.
make: *** [uncommon.mk:1113: miniprelude.c] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

~~~




https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17306

This is just "random" patch which can't be applied without having some Ruby in place. If you apply it, the build immediately fails:     BASERUBY = echo executable host ruby is required.  use --with-baseruby option.; false     CFLAGS = -O2  -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fPIC -m64     XCFLAGS = -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector-strong -fno-strict-overflow -DRUBY_DEVEL=1 -fvisibility=hidden -fexcess-precision=standard -DRUBY_EXPORT -DCANONICALIZATION_FOR_MATHN -I. -I.ext/include/x86_64-linux -I./include -I. -I./enc/unicode/12.1.0     DLDFLAGS = -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed  -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -Wl,-soname,libruby.so.3.0 -fstack-protector-strong  -m64 echo executable host ruby is required.  use --with-baseruby option.; false ./tool/generic_erb.rb -I. -o miniprelude.c \     ./template/prelude.c.tmpl ./ast.rb ./dir.rb ./gc.rb ./integer.rb ./io.rb ./pack.rb ./trace_point.rb ./warning.rb ./array.rb ./kernel.rb ./ractor.rb ./prelude.rb ./gem_prelude.rb But if you really want to know what is the patch about, the please look here:

This is the case (1) I have mentioned bellow. As you can see from the
patch, it turns out it is not that easy as I was expecting.

* Building `miniruby` target is not enough.

* Loading of dynamic libraries is not enabled by default in miniruby.

* There are required several extensions (ripper and stringio atm).

* There is required some script which acts as "ruby" to glue all this
together.


So based on the experience, I have several discussion topics:

* Is it worth of building miniruby with all this hassle? It could be
better to build "bootstrap-ruby" instead, which could be possible better
interchangeable with system ruby. IOW that would bring this closer to
the variant (2).

`ruby` project does not use any bootstrap, right? What specifically do you mean 
by bootstrap-ruby? Is it RPM ~bootstrap?

Incidentally, ruby has `bootstraptest` folder with tests... I don't think it's 
used for any regular build, but maybe we could use it for such bootstrapping?

If you checkout Ruby repository, you won't be able to build it without Ruby available. You should understand that the tarball we are using to build Ruby is already processed, therefore it does not need Ruby, but that could be perceived to be against guidelines to "build everything from source". But my question was if building just miniruby for boostrap is not too much hastle, maybe it would be easier to build full featured ruby.

* Not sure if the miniruby configure options changes a lot. I have the
feeling that the build system tries to pull in even the parts which
should be unused :/

* Would it be worth of cleaning up the "miniruby" directory, to have
more control about what could be used/included. I have diff of the stuff
which is in tarball and what is the minimal set of files required to
build miniruby at my hand, if anybody is interested.

Is upstream interested in such trimming? Seems like a worth-while thing to 
have. Or is it not upstreamable?

I don't think upstream is really interested. At several occasions I was told that Ruby build depends on Ruby and upstream is fine with it. Recent steps such as [1] are using Ruby even more then previously. Anyway, thinking about this boostrap project over night and thinking about this question, I think that my next step should be trying to use the miniruby after `make clean`, which should bring the tarball content closer to upstream repository. I'll see what more is needed to build Ruby and I might consider reporting my findings upstream. But I am afraid this will require more time then I can spend on this.

So what did I miss? Of course I am interested in any feedback and
especially in suggestions for improvement.

Is there a build? simple-koji-ci does not seem to run, same for tmt CI.

Is there any testing we can do to help?

Vít



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15306

Yes, forget about simple-koji-ci and get hands dirty with building and experimenting with .spec file yourself. This is not much about if the produced build of Ruby is right, but how to produce it.

OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org