On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 08:57:50AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 17:30, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 05:05:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 08:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:19:35AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Python virtualenv tool sets up a few things in the envronment,
> > > > > putting its path first in the PATH environment variable and setting up
> > > > > a sys.prefix different from the sys.base_prefix value.
> > > > >
> > > > > At present buildman puts the toolchain path first in PATH so that it
> > > > > can
> > > > > be found easily during the build. For sandbox this causes problems
> > > > > since
> > > > > /usr/bin/gcc (for example) results in '/usr/bin' being prepended to
> > > > > the
> > > > > PATH variable. As a result, the venv is partially disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is that sandbox builds within a venv ignore the venv, e.g.
> > > > > when looking for packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct this by detecting the venv and adding the toolchain path after
> > > > > the venv path.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > >
> > > > Why are we using PATH at all in this case? Shouldn't we just be setting
> > > > CROSS_COMPILE=/full/path/to/the/prefix ?
> > >
> > > This is the -p option to buildman. The original commit was:
> > >
> > > commit bb1501f2c22c979961b735db775605cccedd98f6
> > > Author: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > Date: Mon Dec 1 17:34:00 2014 -0700
> > >
> > > buildman: Add an option to use the full tool chain path
> > >
> > > In some cases there may be multiple toolchains with the same name in
> > > the
> > > path. Provide an option to use the full path in the CROSS_COMPILE
> > > environment variable.
> > >
> > > Note: Wolfgang mentioned that this is dangerous since in some cases
> > > there
> > > may be other tools on the path that are needed. So this is set up as
> > > an
> > > option, not the default. I will need test confirmation (i.e. that this
> > > commit fixes a real problem) before merging it.
> > >
> > > As to why we don't always do this, well that is back in the mists of
> > > time, 10 years ago.
> > >
> > > BTW, this is raising a point ("let's change the behaviour") separate
> > > from the goal of this commit, which is to fix a problem with venv,
> > > albeit that if we made -p the only option, then we could potentially
> > > drop all PATH changes. Perhaps toolchains are built differently now,
> > > such that they always invoke their tools using the same prefix and
> > > dir?
> >
> > Wait, I'm confused. buildman internally updates its own PATH to avoid
> > calling CROSS_COMPILE with the full path due to a concern about
> > toolchain bugs?
>
> Not its own PATH: the one it passes to U-Boot's 'make'.OK, but the point stands. > I'm not sure why, actually. It is such a long time ago that I don't remember. > > I see: > > ~/.buildman-toolchains/gcc-13.2.0-nolibc/arm-linux-gnueabi/bin/arm-linux-gnueabi-ld Yes, prefixed version that's allowed to be called by users. > and > > ~/.buildman-toolchains/gcc-13.2.0-nolibc/arm-linux-gnueabi/arm-linux-gnueabi/bin/ld Internal usage, here be dragons and all that. > but interestingly there is no gcc in the latter directory, which there > was in 4.6 (and presumably for some time after). > > Certainly for sandbox there is no prefix, so we cannot add it in that > case, and sandbox is actually the arch used to run these tests. CROSS_COMPILE is empty for sandbox, yes. > What are you suggesting we change about this patch? That it's going about things backwards? If you're setting CROSS_COMPILE _then_ it should be the full path that it already knows otherwise if not setting CROSS_COMPILE then also not modifying PATH. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
