Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: Well Alpine is using the ecl route: https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/community/sbcl/APKBUILD And GNU GuixSD is using the clisp route but per the comments ecl would be better: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/lisp.scm#n424 In principle, we can do something similar: 1. If elibc_musl, sbcl should BDEPEND on ecls (or maybe clisp) 2. In the same case, the build system should be patched to use another bootstrap lisp 3. For elibc_glibc nothing should change 4. All this should be tested on a computer running a musl profile Personally I can do nothing of this list. I have no computer with musl profile. Does any developer running such a system volunteer to do this work - to be a co-maintained of sbcl on musl? If not, I'll go forward and pmask all packages which unconditionally depend on sbcl (maybe via some intermediates) in profiles/features/musl/use.mask. Andrey
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 02:59 +0100, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > [2022-12-02 05:11:15+] Andrey Grozin: > > In principle, one can try a workaround: use some other lisp (say, clisp or > > ecl) as the bootstrap lisp. This way is at best brittle: there is no > > guarantee that these external lisps will compile the sbcl sources > > successfully. People say that sometimes this works. > > Well Alpine is using the ecl route: > https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/community/sbcl/APKBUILD ECL is a good choice. Upstream is active and friendly. but: The current and only version of ECL in the tree has a bug that makes it unusable for compiling SBCL: * https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1956852 * https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/-/issues/667 A fix was committed, but there hasn't been a new release yet.
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
[2022-12-02 05:11:15+] Andrey Grozin: In principle, one can try a workaround: use some other lisp (say, clisp or ecl) as the bootstrap lisp. This way is at best brittle: there is no guarantee that these external lisps will compile the sbcl sources successfully. People say that sometimes this works. Well Alpine is using the ecl route: https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/community/sbcl/APKBUILD And GNU GuixSD is using the clisp route but per the comments ecl would be better: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/lisp.scm#n424
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:28 AM Peter Stuge wrote: > > Andrey Grozin wrote: > > This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge > > all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these > > packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles. > > Is the last sentence actually true? > > Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? > > Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages > which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages > only because a dependency can't be emerged? > > I don't think portage cares; it will show sbcl masked if it is a > dependency, right? The project has a (somewhat implicit) goal to prefer installable depgraphs. We use software like pkgcheck to verify these (and there are CI failures if the depgraph is broken, and we make developers fix such things.) So if we had like, A -> B -> C, and C is profile-masked on some profile, we should be masking A and B (so we avoid users seeing a broken depgraph.) You might think "well I see A -> B[foo] all the time, and portage will make me set USE=foo on B." This is generally true except: - Oftentimes if this is a sane default, B will have USE="+foo" (e.g. foo will be on by default) and this requirement will not be visible to users. - USE flags are intended to be toggled and most USE flag values are supported by Gentoo (except for REQUIRED_USE restrictions.) - Portage has an autounmask flag that will configure things so B is installable (by flipping foo on for you); but this function does not exist for profile-masks. We do not expect users to "undo" profile-masks, so when things are profile-masked we value the user experience (if X is visible, X should be installable) rather than minimal masking. -A > > > Thanks > > //Peter >
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
> On 2 Dec 2022, at 19:28, Peter Stuge wrote: > > Andrey Grozin wrote: >> This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge >> all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these >> packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles. > > Is the last sentence actually true? > > Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? > > Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages > which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages > only because a dependency can't be emerged? No, that's not how it works, because right now, you can end up with something that depends on sbcl on a musl system where you can't actually install it. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
Andrey Grozin wrote: > This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge > all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these > packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles. Is the last sentence actually true? Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages only because a dependency can't be emerged? I don't think portage cares; it will show sbcl masked if it is a dependency, right? Thanks //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
> The sbcl ebuild from the Gentoo tree is useless on musl. And hence it should be masked. Otherwise somebody would think that [s]he can simply emerge sbcl on a musl profile, and will be disappointed. Ah, I see. That makes sense, and I think I can just unmask it in my custom musl profile. Thanks! Tom
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Tom Gillespie wrote: For the record I've had sbcl building and running on musl for months without issue (at one point I even had static linking working). You have to cross compile a musl version and then side load the binary instead of using one of the distributed binaries. See https://github.com/tgbugs/dockerfiles/blob/master/source.org#sbcl-bootstrap for reference. See also https://hub.docker.com/r/tgbugs/musl/tags?page=1=sbcl. Yes. Either cross-compiling, or (with some luck) using some other lisp for bootstrap. Thus I'd very much appreciate if it sbcl were not masked on those profiles. The sbcl ebuild from the Gentoo tree is useless on musl. And hence it should be masked. Otherwise somebody would think that [s]he can simply emerge sbcl on a musl profile, and will be disappointed. Andrey
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
For the record I've had sbcl building and running on musl for months without issue (at one point I even had static linking working). You have to cross compile a musl version and then side load the binary instead of using one of the distributed binaries. See https://github.com/tgbugs/dockerfiles/blob/master/source.org#sbcl-bootstrap for reference. See also https://hub.docker.com/r/tgbugs/musl/tags?page=1=sbcl. Thus I'd very much appreciate if it sbcl were not masked on those profiles. Best, Tom
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Sam James wrote: If the dependencies are optional (at least for some), we should indeed (package.)use.mask sbcl on musl to reduce the damage, then package.mask the remaining unconditional reverse dependencies. But I cannot do these this myself. I use neither musl nor ros. I suppose ros developers should update their ebuilds to conditionalize as many uses of sbcl as possible. It would be good to call this USE flag "sbcl". 2 packages (sci-mathematics/maxima and sci-mathematics/fricas) already use this name, and I have included it in profiles/features/musl/use.mask. Thanks, Andrey
Re: [gentoo-dev] musl, sbcl, and ros
> On 2 Dec 2022, at 05:11, Andrey Grozin wrote:
>
> Hello *,
>
> The sbcl upstream only supports glibc Linux systems. Building sbcl uses sbcl
> binary (which fails to run on musl) to compile sbcl sources.
>
> In principle, one can try a workaround: use some other lisp (say, clisp or
> ecl) as the bootstrap lisp. This way is at best brittle: there is no
> guarantee that these external lisps will compile the sbcl sources
> successfully. People say that sometimes this works.
>
> No user of musl profiles could successfully emerge sbcl from time -infinity
> to the present moment. The natural solution is to pmask sbcl in musl profiles.
>
> So I've done. But this leads to unexpected consequences. dev-ros/roslisp hard
> depends on sbcl. ros-meta/ros_core hard depends on roslisp. ros-meta/ros_base
> hard depends on ros_core. ros-meta/{perception,robot,viz} hard depend on
> ros_core. Maybe, more packages depend on {perception,robot,viz}, I haven't
> checked.
>
> This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge all
> these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these packages
> should be pmasked in the musl profiles.
>
> Before doing this drastic change I decided to ask for your advice. Should I
> go forward and pmask them now? Or maybe for some of them the dependence on
> sbcl can be made optional, and it would be sufficient to use.mask such an
> option name? Or maybe roslisp can use some other lisp instead of sbcl?
>
Thanks for asking and for looking to sort it out for musl.
If the dependencies are optional (at least for some), we should indeed
(package.)use.mask sbcl on musl to reduce the damage,
then package.mask the remaining unconditional reverse dependencies.
For things like this, I tend to use GitHub pull requests because you get CI for
free to see if the masks
are sufficient, and if not, what the problems are. But you can emulate that
using pkgcheck scan on the whole
tree locally.
Best,
sam
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
