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

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 2:10 AM Marcin Dulak <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

ack'ing for the specific string appearing in the output of make when a
target builds sucessfully may work.
The ansi2txt is to remove color formatting, so ack can find the phrase.
```
make BREAKPOINT=823-shadow | ansi2txt | ack --passthru "stopped at
823-shadow as requested"
```

>
> 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