| Message ID | 20200924100613.71136-1-r.bolshakov@yadro.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [kvm-unit-tests] README: Reflect missing --getopt in configure | expand |
On 24/09/20 12:06, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > 83760814f637 ("configure: Check for new-enough getopt") has replaced > proposed patch and doesn't introduce --getopt option in configure. > Instead, `configure` and `run_tests.sh` expect proper getopt to be > available in PATH. Is this because getopt is "keg only"? I thought you could just add `brew --prefix`/bin to the path. You can also do "brew link" if there are no backwards-compatibility issues. Paolo > Signed-off-by: Roman Bolshakov <r.bolshakov@yadro.com> > --- > README.macOS.md | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/README.macOS.md b/README.macOS.md > index 4ca5a57..62b00be 100644 > --- a/README.macOS.md > +++ b/README.macOS.md > @@ -22,10 +22,14 @@ $ brew install i686-elf-gcc > $ brew install x86_64-elf-gcc > ``` > > -32-bit x86 tests can be built like that: > +Make enhanced getopt available in the current shell session: > +``` > +export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH" > +``` > + > +Then, 32-bit x86 tests can be built like that: > ``` > $ ./configure \ > - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ > --arch=i386 \ > --cross-prefix=i686-elf- > $ make -j $(nproc) > @@ -34,7 +38,6 @@ $ make -j $(nproc) > 64-bit x86 tests can be built likewise: > ``` > $ ./configure \ > - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ > --arch=x86_64 \ > --cross-prefix=x86_64-elf- > $ make -j $(nproc) > @@ -71,7 +74,6 @@ $ ct-ng -C $X_BUILD_DIR build CT_PREFIX=$X_INSTALL_DIR > Once compiled, the cross-compiler can be used to build the tests: > ``` > $ ./configure \ > - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ > --arch=x86_64 \ > --cross-prefix=$X_INSTALL_DIR/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu- > $ make -j $(nproc) >
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:18:04PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 24/09/20 12:06, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > > 83760814f637 ("configure: Check for new-enough getopt") has replaced > > proposed patch and doesn't introduce --getopt option in configure. > > Instead, `configure` and `run_tests.sh` expect proper getopt to be > > available in PATH. > > Is this because getopt is "keg only"? I thought you could just add > `brew --prefix`/bin to the path. You can also do "brew link" if there > are no backwards-compatibility issues. > Yes, keg-only packages do not shadow system utilities (which either come from FreeBSD or GNU but have the most recent GPL2 version, i.e. quite old), so adding `brew --prefix`/bin to PATH doesn't help much. brew link doesn't help either :) $ brew link gnu-getopt Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc Thanks, Roman
On 24/09/20 12:30, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > Yes, keg-only packages do not shadow system utilities (which either come > from FreeBSD or GNU but have the most recent GPL2 version, i.e. quite > old), so adding `brew --prefix`/bin to PATH doesn't help much. > > brew link doesn't help either :) > > $ brew link gnu-getopt > > Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt > If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: > echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc Oh, that's not what https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ says: ----- What does “keg-only” mean? It means the formula is installed only into the Cellar and is not linked into /usr/local. This means most tools will not find it. You can see why a formula was installed as keg-only, and instructions to include it in your PATH, by running brew info <formula>. You can still link in the formula if you need to with brew link <formula>, though this can cause unexpected behaviour if you are shadowing macOS software. ----- Apparently you need --force. Paolo
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:34:28PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 24/09/20 12:30, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > > Yes, keg-only packages do not shadow system utilities (which either come > > from FreeBSD or GNU but have the most recent GPL2 version, i.e. quite > > old), so adding `brew --prefix`/bin to PATH doesn't help much. > > > > brew link doesn't help either :) > > > > $ brew link gnu-getopt > > > > Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt > > If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: > > echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc > > Oh, that's not what https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ says: > > ----- > What does “keg-only” mean? > > It means the formula is installed only into the Cellar and is not linked > into /usr/local. This means most tools will not find it. You can see why > a formula was installed as keg-only, and instructions to include it in > your PATH, by running brew info <formula>. > > You can still link in the formula if you need to with brew link > <formula>, though this can cause unexpected behaviour if you are > shadowing macOS software. > ----- > > Apparently you need --force. > Unfortunately it has no effect (and I wouldn't want to do that to avoid issues with other scripts/software that implicitly depend on native utilities): $ brew link --force gnu-getopt Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc So if it's possible I'd still prefer to add an option to specify --getopt in configure. I can resend a patch for that. Thanks, Roman
On 24/09/20 12:48, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > Unfortunately it has no effect (and I wouldn't want to do that to avoid > issues with other scripts/software that implicitly depend on native > utilities): > > $ brew link --force gnu-getopt > Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt > If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: > echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc > > So if it's possible I'd still prefer to add an option to specify > --getopt in configure. I can resend a patch for that. No, I'm not going to accept that. It's just Apple's stupidity. I have applied your patch, rewriting the harness in another language would probably be a good idea though. Paolo
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:52:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 24/09/20 12:48, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > > Unfortunately it has no effect (and I wouldn't want to do that to avoid > > issues with other scripts/software that implicitly depend on native > > utilities): > > > > $ brew link --force gnu-getopt > > Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt > > If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: > > echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc > > > > So if it's possible I'd still prefer to add an option to specify > > --getopt in configure. I can resend a patch for that. > > No, I'm not going to accept that. It's just Apple's stupidity. I have > applied your patch, rewriting the harness in another language would > probably be a good idea though. > I also feel like we've outgrown Bash, especially when we implement things like migration tests. We have had requests to keep it Bash though in order to continue running in resource constrained environments. I think we can have both. We could rewrite the harness is a different language and then compile/generate standalone tests (as we already do to some extent). The standalone tests need to be compiled/generated in such a way that they can run in resource constrained environments. Finally, with standalone tests the only test runner you need is for t in `ls tests`; do tests/$t done which can be written in the minimal scripting language of your choice. Thanks, drew
On 24/09/2020 13.48, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:52:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 24/09/20 12:48, Roman Bolshakov wrote: >>> Unfortunately it has no effect (and I wouldn't want to do that to avoid >>> issues with other scripts/software that implicitly depend on native >>> utilities): >>> >>> $ brew link --force gnu-getopt >>> Warning: Refusing to link macOS provided/shadowed software: gnu-getopt >>> If you need to have gnu-getopt first in your PATH run: >>> echo 'export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH"' >> ~/.zshrc >>> >>> So if it's possible I'd still prefer to add an option to specify >>> --getopt in configure. I can resend a patch for that. >> >> No, I'm not going to accept that. It's just Apple's stupidity. I have >> applied your patch, rewriting the harness in another language would >> probably be a good idea though. > > I also feel like we've outgrown Bash, especially when we implement > things like migration tests. Any chance that we could then use some pre-existing test runner instead of re-inventing the wheel? E.g. I think Avocado already has some basic support for running the kvm-unit-tests, IIRC. Thomas
diff --git a/README.macOS.md b/README.macOS.md index 4ca5a57..62b00be 100644 --- a/README.macOS.md +++ b/README.macOS.md @@ -22,10 +22,14 @@ $ brew install i686-elf-gcc $ brew install x86_64-elf-gcc ``` -32-bit x86 tests can be built like that: +Make enhanced getopt available in the current shell session: +``` +export PATH="/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin:$PATH" +``` + +Then, 32-bit x86 tests can be built like that: ``` $ ./configure \ - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ --arch=i386 \ --cross-prefix=i686-elf- $ make -j $(nproc) @@ -34,7 +38,6 @@ $ make -j $(nproc) 64-bit x86 tests can be built likewise: ``` $ ./configure \ - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ --arch=x86_64 \ --cross-prefix=x86_64-elf- $ make -j $(nproc) @@ -71,7 +74,6 @@ $ ct-ng -C $X_BUILD_DIR build CT_PREFIX=$X_INSTALL_DIR Once compiled, the cross-compiler can be used to build the tests: ``` $ ./configure \ - --getopt=/usr/local/opt/gnu-getopt/bin/getopt \ --arch=x86_64 \ --cross-prefix=$X_INSTALL_DIR/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu- $ make -j $(nproc)
83760814f637 ("configure: Check for new-enough getopt") has replaced proposed patch and doesn't introduce --getopt option in configure. Instead, `configure` and `run_tests.sh` expect proper getopt to be available in PATH. Signed-off-by: Roman Bolshakov <r.bolshakov@yadro.com> --- README.macOS.md | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)