Re: Decompose mk_CHROOT make target into before/gcc/after

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 8:46 AM Pierre Labastie <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 22:25 +0000, md wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please let me know what do you think about a feasibility of decomposing
> the
> > mk_CHROOT target
> > into "_before_gcc", "_gcc", and "_after_gcc" targets, so that they could
> be
> > executed separately, if desired.
> >
> > I'm experimenting with jhalfs https://github.com/marcindulak/jhalfs-ci,
> > but getting limited by the github actions runners limit of 6 hours per
> job
> >
> https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/usage-limits-billing-and-administration#usage-limits
> > .
> >
> > 6 hours, even after properly (see
> >
> https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/alfs-discuss/2022-09/msg00008.html
> > )
> > setting make to run two jobs in paralell may be insufficient to perform
> > chapter8
> >
> https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/systemd/chapter08/chapter08.html
> .
> > A github action runner has 2 cores
> >
> https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-github-hosted-runners/about-github-hosted-runners#supported-runners-and-hardware-resources
> > .
> >
> > Do you think a change like that would be feasible in jhalfs?
> > If yes, any recommendations how roughly an implementation would proceed,
> > which parts of the code would need to be modified?
>
> First suggestion: you can stop make after any package by using "make
> BREAKPOINT=<package target>", for example "make BREAKPOINT=823-shadow".
> This
> exists and is by far the easiest.
>

I'm going first with the existing method, but a BREAKPOINT results in
non-zero exit status,
which is not useful when running in an automated way, where I would like to
rely on exit status.

```
make BREAKPOINT=823-shadow
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Building target 823-shadow
 [++++++++++++++++++++++++++|                                 ] 0 min. 26
sec
 Target 823-shadow OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The build has been stopped at 823-shadow as requested
make: *** [Makefile:1029: 823-shadow] Error 1
make: *** [Makefile:113: mk_CHROOT] Error 2
```

The common/makefile-functions file, housekeeping function defines this "The
build has been stopped" behavior
by returning false. Is there a general solution for this situation, as
changing false -> true
does not stop the make at 823-shadow, and instead continues to later
targets.
```
make BREAKPOINT=823-shadow
...
mk_CHROOT
You are going to CHROOT into /vagrant/jhalfs/mnt/build_dir
a password may be required
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Building target 823-shadow
 [++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++            ] 0 min. 47
sec
 Target 823-shadow OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The build has been stopped at 823-shadow as requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Building target 824-gcc
 [++++                                                     ]
```

I wonder whether it is feasible to create some kind of wrapper over
the housekeeping function by parsing the output,
so the function stops the build as requested and does not error out, and
errors when it should.

I would like to rely on the jhalfs trunk, and ideally not use any local
modifications when building the project unattended.
Would a modification involving the second suggestion be accepted into
jhalfs?


> Second suggestion: you could directly tweak $BUILD_DIR/jhalfs/Makefile
> (with sed
> or another stream editor). You'd need to break the long line starting with
> "mk_CHROOT" into three (Note the line containing SHELL is useless for
> recent
> versions of lfs).
> Third suggestion: change the Makefile creation by adding to the case
> commands,
> at line 95, 108, 124, 189 of LFS/master.sh, and also around line 439.
>
> >
> > I prefer to keep all tests run, but in case 824-gcc alone does not fit
> into 6
> > hours,
> > what would it take to implement a selective test-skip for it?
>
> Comment out "make -k check" in the script... something like sed '/make -k
> check/s/^/#/' (and maybe same for a few other lines)
>
> Pierre
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/alfs-discuss
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/alfs-discuss
Unsubscribe: See the above information page