Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

README: re-wrote build instructions, using pkgs #14

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2014

Conversation

larsbutler
Copy link
Member

README: re-wrote build instructions, using pkgs

Completely re-wrote and simplified the build instructions. The new
instructions involve installation zerovm and zvm-validator from
packages, instead of installing manually.

NOTE: I removed the section which instructs the user to run zerovm tests
by invoking ./ftests.sh from the ZEROVM_ROOT. We need to figure out a
good context in which to run these tests. They do require a working
toolchain to function, but they are part of the zerovm repo (which is a
prerequisite for building the toolchain), so there's kind of a catch 22
here that we need to think about. Perhaps it's best to move these tests
to the toolchain repo.

Completely re-wrote and simplified the build instructions. The new
instructions involve installation zerovm and zvm-validator from
packages, instead of installing manually.

NOTE: I removed the section which instructs the user to run zerovm tests
by invoking `./ftests.sh` from the ZEROVM_ROOT. We need to figure out a
good context in which to run these tests. They do require a working
toolchain to function, but they are part of the zerovm repo (which is a
prerequisite for building the toolchain), so there's kind of a catch 22
here that we need to think about. Perhaps it's best to move these tests
to the toolchain repo.
* `ZVM_PREFIX`: should point to an *empty writable directory* all
files will be installed here after `make install`
* `ZRT_ROOT`: should point to git clone of `zrt` repository
* `LD_LIBRARY_PATH`: library path for libvalidator.so (from
[zvm-validator](https://github.com/zerovm/validator))
* `CPATH`: include directory containing `zvm.h` (from `zerovm-zmq-dev`)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great that you could clean up the instructions!

We should look into this, though, since setting CPATH means that we're doing something wrong. If it worked before without setting it and now requires setting it, then one of our Makefiles is broken. The Makefile needs to add -I /usr/x86_64-nacl/include to the right compile command.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that makes sense. I opened an issue for this: #15

mgeisler added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2014
README: re-wrote build instructions, using pkgs
@mgeisler mgeisler merged commit 6c10c1c into zerovm:master Mar 4, 2014
@@ -94,16 +80,10 @@ Example of cleanup procedures:
cd $HOME/zvm-toolchain
make clean
cd $ZVM_PREFIX
rm -fr *
rm -rf *
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change looks like an unrelated change to me — it's not about using packages, it's fixing something else.

@pkit
Copy link
Member

pkit commented Mar 4, 2014

ftests.sh paragraph was added after people repeatedly cloned zerovm repo, happily built it, and then tried to run functional tests...
I don't see why these tests should be moved to toolchain, they are testing specific zerovm features, not toolchan ones.

@larsbutler
Copy link
Member Author

@pkit Point taken. Perhaps once we have the toolchain bootstrapped and continuously packaged, we can include the ftests in the ZeroVM build (see http://ci.oslab.cc/job/zvm-zerovm/, http://ci.oslab.cc/job/zvm-zerovm-nightly/). Does that make sense to you? It's a bit tricky with all of these somewhat circular dependencies.

@pkit
Copy link
Member

pkit commented Mar 4, 2014

I think it will look ugly any way. Last time I've checked most new platform builds were ugly as hell (Android anyone?)
But I'm happy with any change that makes things cleaner and tidier.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants