As before, the file added to tools/check/ must be given exec permission.
Now using the approach suggested by Christoph Egger
<Christoph.Egger@amd.com>.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Index: 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile
==================================================================---
2006-12-11.orig/tools/Makefile 2006-12-04 08:49:57.000000000 +0100
+++ 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile 2006-12-14 14:25:02.000000000 +0100
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ all: check
$(MAKE) ioemu
.PHONY: install
-install: check
+install: check_install
@set -e; for subdir in $(SUBDIRS-y); do \
$(MAKE) -C $$subdir $@; \
done
@@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ distclean: clean
check:
$(MAKE) -C check
+.PHONY: check_install
+check_install: check
+ $(MAKE) -C check install
+
.PHONY: check_clean
check_clean:
$(MAKE) -C check clean
Index: 2006-12-11/tools/check/check_python_xml
==================================================================--- /dev/null
1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ 2006-12-11/tools/check/check_python_xml 2006-12-14 17:04:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+# CHECK-INSTALL
+
+RC=0
+
+python -c ''
+import os.path, sys
+for p in sys.path:
+ if os.path.exists(p + "/xml/dom/minidom.py"):
+ sys.exit(0)
+sys.exit(1)
+'' || RC=1
+
+if test ${RC} -ne 0; then
+ echo
+ echo " *** Check for python development environment FAILED"
+fi
+
+exit ${RC}
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2006-Dec-14 16:47 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> As before, the file added to tools/check/ must be given exec permission. > > Now using the approach suggested by Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>. > > [Snip] > > Index: 2006-12-11/tools/check/check_python_xml > ==================================================================> --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ 2006-12-11/tools/check/check_python_xml 2006-12-14 17:04:04.000000000 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ > +#!/bin/sh > +# CHECK-INSTALL > + > +RC=0 > + > +python -c '' > +import os.path, sys > +for p in sys.path: > + if os.path.exists(p + "/xml/dom/minidom.py"): > + sys.exit(0) > +sys.exit(1) > +'' || RC=1 > + > +if test ${RC} -ne 0; then > + echo > + echo " *** Check for python development environment FAILED" > +fi > + > +exit ${RC}How about if ! python -c ''import xml.dom.minidom'' 2>/dev/null ; then echo echo " *** Check for python development environment FAILED" exit 1 else exit 0 fi Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2006-Dec-14 16:59 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
>How about > >if ! python -c ''import xml.dom.minidom'' 2>/dev/null ; then > echo > echo " *** Check for python development environment FAILED" > exit 1 >else > exit 0 >fiWhy not - I didn''t invent the other method, I just cloned what we had for python-devel (which in turn I created based on suggestions from you and others). I''m not a python person at all, I just want understandable error messages when dependencies are missing instead of cryptic ones. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2006-Dec-14 17:04 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:59:36PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> >How about > > > >if ! python -c ''import xml.dom.minidom'' 2>/dev/null ; then > > echo > > echo " *** Check for python development environment FAILED" > > exit 1 > >else > > exit 0 > >fi > > Why not - I didn''t invent the other method, I just cloned what we had for > python-devel (which in turn I created based on suggestions from you and > others). I''m not a python person at all, I just want understandable error > messages when dependencies are missing instead of cryptic ones.I''ll put something like that in then. I think SuSE are the only ones who split minidom.py out from the main Python package, which is why you''re having the problem ;-) Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2006-Dec-14 17:11 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> As before, the file added to tools/check/ must be given exec permission. > > Now using the approach suggested by Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> > > Index: 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile > ==================================================================> --- 2006-12-11.orig/tools/Makefile 2006-12-04 08:49:57.000000000 +0100 > +++ 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile 2006-12-14 14:25:02.000000000 +0100 > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ all: check > $(MAKE) ioemu > > .PHONY: install > -install: check > +install: check_install > @set -e; for subdir in $(SUBDIRS-y); do \ > $(MAKE) -C $$subdir $@; \ > done > @@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ distclean: clean > check: > $(MAKE) -C check > > +.PHONY: check_install > +check_install: check > + $(MAKE) -C check install > + > .PHONY: check_clean > check_clean: > $(MAKE) -C check cleanWhat''s this change for? In tools/check/Makefile, it says not to run make -C check install as part of make install. Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2006-Dec-15 08:22 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
>>> Ewan Mellor <ewan@xensource.com> 14.12.06 18:11 >>> >On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> As before, the file added to tools/check/ must be given exec permission. >> >> Now using the approach suggested by Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> >> >> Index: 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile >> ==================================================================>> --- 2006-12-11.orig/tools/Makefile 2006-12-04 08:49:57.000000000 +0100 >> +++ 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile 2006-12-14 14:25:02.000000000 +0100 >> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ all: check >> $(MAKE) ioemu >> >> .PHONY: install >> -install: check >> +install: check_install >> @set -e; for subdir in $(SUBDIRS-y); do \ >> $(MAKE) -C $$subdir $@; \ >> done >> @@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ distclean: clean >> check: >> $(MAKE) -C check >> >> +.PHONY: check_install >> +check_install: check >> + $(MAKE) -C check install >> + >> .PHONY: check_clean >> check_clean: >> $(MAKE) -C check clean > >What''s this change for? In tools/check/Makefile, it says not to run make -C >check install as part of make install.Hmm, I didn''t realize this was intentionally not used. For me it simply means I can''t run Xen tools directly out of the build area (since install.sh does nothing but copying things around, there''s little point in using it for other than an install into the default (root=/) location. But obviously, when run directly out of the build area, the install checks will never get done and I''m ending up with a cryptic error message again. As I can''t think of a smarter way, I think taking this change will depend on whether it''s acceptable to the majority to require all install prerequisites to be present on build-only machines, and whether it is a reasonable expectation that at some future point it''ll be possible to run multiple Xen versions on the same machine (and, as per above comment, directly out of the build area). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2006-Dec-15 09:33 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 08:22:06AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> Ewan Mellor <ewan@xensource.com> 14.12.06 18:11 >>> > >On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> As before, the file added to tools/check/ must be given exec permission. > >> > >> Now using the approach suggested by Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> > >> > >> Index: 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile > >> ==================================================================> >> --- 2006-12-11.orig/tools/Makefile 2006-12-04 08:49:57.000000000 +0100 > >> +++ 2006-12-11/tools/Makefile 2006-12-14 14:25:02.000000000 +0100 > >> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ all: check > >> $(MAKE) ioemu > >> > >> .PHONY: install > >> -install: check > >> +install: check_install > >> @set -e; for subdir in $(SUBDIRS-y); do \ > >> $(MAKE) -C $$subdir $@; \ > >> done > >> @@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ distclean: clean > >> check: > >> $(MAKE) -C check > >> > >> +.PHONY: check_install > >> +check_install: check > >> + $(MAKE) -C check install > >> + > >> .PHONY: check_clean > >> check_clean: > >> $(MAKE) -C check clean > > > >What''s this change for? In tools/check/Makefile, it says not to run make -C > >check install as part of make install. > > Hmm, I didn''t realize this was intentionally not used. For me it simply means I > can''t run Xen tools directly out of the build area (since install.sh does nothing > but copying things around, there''s little point in using it for other than an > install into the default (root=/) location. But obviously, when run directly out > of the build area, the install checks will never get done and I''m ending up > with a cryptic error message again.Just run make -C tools/check install.> As I can''t think of a smarter way, I think taking this change will depend on > whether it''s acceptable to the majority to require all install prerequisites to > be present on build-only machines,That''s certainly not acceptable. We won''t have the bridge-utils on our build boxes, for instance.> and whether it is a reasonable > expectation that at some future point it''ll be possible to run multiple Xen > versions on the same machine (and, as per above comment, directly out of > the build area).Why do you want to run them straight out of the build area? Just do export DISTDIR=/usr/local/xen-3.0.3 make dist and you''ve got everything that you need, right there. You''ll probably have to fix a few hardcoded paths, but that should be easy. Ewan. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2006-Dec-15 09:49 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On 15/12/06 09:33, "Ewan Mellor" <ewan@xensource.com> wrote:>> As I can''t think of a smarter way, I think taking this change will depend on >> whether it''s acceptable to the majority to require all install prerequisites >> to >> be present on build-only machines, > > That''s certainly not acceptable. We won''t have the bridge-utils on our build > boxes, for instance.Perhaps we should have different behaviour between ''make install'' and ''make dist'' in this respect? The latter shouldn''t run install checks, certainly, but arguably the former should. Anyhow, I''ll back out the changes to the Makefile for 3.0.4 (which means in -unstable, for now) and we can revisit this argument for 3.0.5. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2006-Dec-15 09:50 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
>Why do you want to run them straight out of the build area? Just do > >export DISTDIR=/usr/local/xen-3.0.3 >make dist > >and you''ve got everything that you need, right there. You''ll probably have to >fix a few hardcoded paths, but that should be easy.I can''t generally see the value of ''installing'' if all that means is just copying. I''m doing this with basically all other components I use non-distro versions of, without problems. Xen is the first one to cause me real headaches here. Also, the ''few hardcoded paths'' seem to be scattered all around the various tools, so it doesn''t look like a rather simple job to (a) spot them all and (b) fix them. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2006-Dec-15 09:54 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] yet another package check (take 2)
On 15/12/06 09:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:> I can''t generally see the value of ''installing'' if all that means is just > copying. I''m > doing this with basically all other components I use non-distro versions of, > without > problems. Xen is the first one to cause me real headaches here. > > Also, the ''few hardcoded paths'' seem to be scattered all around the various > tools, > so it doesn''t look like a rather simple job to (a) spot them all and (b) fix > them.It''s been pointed out that the check script is there for you to run from your own installation wrappers if you want to. Any change to default behaviour will require us to distinguish ''make dist'' and ''make install'' inside the tools directory. That''s a 3.0.5 build-system issue imo. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel