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

alr install redux: Installation of binary crates #1302

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 2, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions .gitattributes
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@
# Mark some misidentified files as always binaries
*.pdf -text
*.png -text
*.tgz -text
237 changes: 237 additions & 0 deletions doc/AEPs/aep-0003.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
AEP: 3
Title: Command `alr install` information
Author: Alejandro R. Mosteo <[email protected]>
Status: Draft
Created: 2022-01-19

Abstract
========

Information gathered about the operation of `gprinstall`, relevant to our
purposes of how to work with static/dynamic libraries and with different
versions of the same library/compilers.

Information
===========

By using different names during installation, several versions of the same lib
can be made to coexist, with some caveats.

For example, after having installed libhello 1.0.0 (static) and libhello 1.0.1
(dynamic) and hello 1.0.2 (dynamic), we obtain this tree:

```
prefix/
├── bin
│   └── hello
├── include
│   ├── hello=1.0.2
│   │   └── hello
│   │   ├── hello.adb
│   │   └── hello_config.ads
│   ├── libhello=1.0.0
│   │   └── libhello
│   │   ├── libhello.adb
│   │   └── libhello.ads
│   └── libhello=1.0.1
│   └── libhello
│   ├── libhello.adb
│   ├── libhello.ads
│   └── libhello_config.ads
├── lib
│   ├── libhello=1.0.0
│   │   └── libhello
│   │   ├── libhello.a
│   │   └── libhello.ali
│   ├── libhello=1.0.1
│   │   └── libhello
│   │   ├── libhello.ali
│   │   ├── libhello_config.ali
│   │   ├── Libhello.so.1.0.1
│   │   └── libLibhello.so -> ../libhello/Libhello.so.1.0.1
│   ├── Libhello.so.1.0.1 -> ../lib/libhello=1.0.1/libhello/Libhello.so.1.0.1
│   └── libLibhello.so -> ../lib/libhello=1.0.1/libhello/libLibhello.so
└── share
└── gpr
├── hello.gpr
├── libhello.gpr
└── manifests
├── hello=1.0.2
├── libhello=1.0.0
└── libhello=1.0.1
```

First caveat is that `gprinstall` clobbers `prefix/share/gpr/libhello.gpr`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why the different versions are installed in sub dirs of lib/? Do you have to change something in the GPR file for that?

What about the installation artifacts? Where are they installed in that case?

   package Install is
      for Artifacts (".") use ("share");
   end Install;

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems the libs are installed redundantly in the /lib folder (as a softlink) and in the named subfolders (as the proper file).

I expect that not using an installation name we would lose the ability to uninstall, and the libs will end just in /lib. (I didn't try this.)

I didn't try with Artifacts, either. Will do. If they don't behave as expected with installation names, we can simply drop that and the possibility of uninstallation altogether.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've added a couple of more tests to the AEP file. In short, softlinks to libs can be placed where convenient, although LD_LIBRARY_PATH still will be needed, and artifacts still work as expected.

without warning, even if `-f` was not used. This means that an installation
with the purpose of development cannot have several versions installed.

Still, it seems we could rely on such a prefix for executables depending on
different versions of the same dynamic library, as ldd shows the proper
dependency:

```
$ ldd prefix/bin/hello
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffa772f000)
Libhello.so.1.0.1 => not found
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But then don't you have to set lib dirs of installed libraries in LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I expected this to be necessary in any case, unless we override with --lib-subdir so lib softlinks are placed together with executables in bin? Would be acceptable I think.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's the kind of "complexity" that we don't want to deal with I would say. How would one know the list of dirs to add in LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

"Build static or deal with the consequences" :)

Copy link
Member Author

@mosteo mosteo Jan 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, but is just one dir to add, LD_LIBRARY_PATH+=:$HOME/.alire/lib (or bin). I considered that acceptable if someone does want to go the dynamic way.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes one dir that's always the same is easy. My understanding of what is in this PR is that there would be different folders:

 lib/libhello=1.0.0/libhello/
 lib/libhello=1.0.1/libhello/

etc.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Those would exist too, but there is always a softlink from the single dir we decide to use (created by gprinstall, not even us), e.g.:

lib/libhello.so.1.0.0 --> lib/libhello=1.0.0/libhello/libhello.so.1.0.0
lib/libhello.so.1.0.1 --> lib/libhello=1.0.1/libhello/libhello.so.1.0.1

To summarize, we can have both binaries and links to libraries in a single dir. The actual libraries reside in subdirs. This is all managed by gprbuild. And, as by default we're using static linking, the issue doesn't even arise unless the user forces dynamic linking.

But actually that's not in this PR yet, which only copies binaries in place. We can verify in the follow-up PR I'm preparing that things fall into place as I think.

libgnat-12.so => /path/to/compiler/.../libgnat-12.so (0x00007fda1ca0e000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /path/to/compiler/.../libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007fda1c7ef000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fda1c5c5000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fda1c5c0000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x00007fda1c4d9000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fda1d0b4000)
```

By using `--mode=usage`, there is no ali, gpr or source files installed. So
going with this mode, unneeded conflicting files are not even installed.

Uninstalling two versions will remove the gpr file after the first uninstall.
However, the second uninstall will not fail, silently removing the rest of
files.

For uninstallation we need to supply the project file, which can come from the
original build folder or from the installed share/gpr location.

However, when installing in usage mode, there will be no gpr file installed,
forcing to preserve the original project file.

In usage mode, static libraries are not installed, and no manifest is created
if nothing gets installed. Uninstalling will then complain about lack of manifest.

It seems that, at least for basic code, an executable build with a compiler and
a dynamic library build with another are compatible.

Executables depend on properly versioned `.so.x.x.x` files, so the extra `.so`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That depends on what the developers set in the library GPR file. By default Alire generates a correct GPR, but there's not guaranty people will not change them.

In my opinion we should not care about this case, but it's better to keep it in mind.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, I too was thinking from the POV of our template projects.

file clobbered by several installs is not important.

## Test to relocate lib files

Running

```
$ rm -rf ../prefix/ ; alr exec -- gprinstall --install-name=hello=1.0.2 --link-lib-subdir=bin hello.gpr --prefix=../prefix -p --mode=usage -XLIBRARY_TYPE=relocatable -r
$ tree ../prefix/ -F
../prefix/
├── bin/
│   ├── hello*
│   ├── Libhello.so.1.0.1 -> ../lib/hello=1.0.2/libhello/Libhello.so.1.0.1*
│   └── libLibhello.so -> ../lib/hello=1.0.2/libhello/libLibhello.so*
├── lib/
│   └── hello=1.0.2/
│   └── libhello/
│   ├── Libhello.so.1.0.1*
│   └── libLibhello.so -> ../libhello/Libhello.so.1.0.1*
└── share/
└── gpr/
└── manifests/
└── hello=1.0.2
```

we can see that the softlinks are placed with the binaries. However, this does
not really help as

```
PATH+=:../prefix/bin hello
hello: error while loading shared libraries: Libhello.so.1.0.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
```

still fails (going into the `bin` directory and launching from there works).

Probably on Windows it will do help, as DLLs are looked for in the PATH.

For Linux, we could instruct users to set `LD_LIBRARY_PATH`, or perhaps add an
`alr install --printenv` that can be added to `.bashrc`.

## Test of artifacts

The following sequence shows artifacts being placed in the expected location:

```
$ alr init --bin hello
$ cd hello
$ touch share/hello/hello-artifact
$ alr build
$ rm -rf ../prefix/ ; alr exec -- gprinstall --install-name=hello=0.1.0-dev --link-lib-subdir=bin hello.gpr --prefix=../prefix -p --mode=usage -XLIBRARY_TYPE=relocatable -r
$ tree ../prefix/ -F
../prefix/
├── bin/
│   └── hello*
└── share/
├── gpr/
│   └── manifests/
│   └── hello=0.1.0-dev
└── hello/
└── hello-artifact
```

Summary of findings
===================

- Several dynamic versions of a library are possible, for executables.
- Development with several versions is not possible.
- `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` seems necessary in any case
- Dependencies on libraries from the compiler also appear.
- It would then be better to use a compiler from within the prefix.
- Uninstall of several versions requires preserving the original project file.
- When uninstalling only one version, the installed gpr file suffices.
- Compiler consistency between dynamic libraries is not mandatory.
- Executables link against the properly versioned dynamic library.

Proposal
========

Given these findings, and the primary need of using `alr install` to make binaries
available, and not to make development libraries available, we can abandon this
latter notion for good. Sharing of large dependencies, if ever implemented will use
a different mechanism.

For installing executables, each installation can be performed on its own: we need
not track crates (as we can check the gprinstall manifests) nor consider
incompatibilities, as there are none. Worst case, two releases from the same crate
would be detected by their manifests, and two different crates clobbering each other
would be detected during `gprinstall`.

For uninstallation, we may redeploy sources to have access to the original project
files.

For (un)installation of local crates, there's also no issue: they will use the local
version, and we have the gpr file available too for both.

We could consider caching build directories for faster installs of related crates
sharing several dependencies, and faster uninstallation. This would incur some disk
usage penalty so we may want to make this optional.

We may want to track dependencies to prevent uninstallation of libraries which are
depended upon. This would be a final enhancement. Uninstallation doesn't seem to be
a pressing matter, as prefixes will be fast to recreate.

Tracking of dependencies isn't trivial as we can't use a single root (there will be
"incompatible" (in solution sense) crates installed quite often, if only because of
forced compilers).

Roadmap
=======

Wanted and simple to implement:

- Installation of binary releases
- Un-uninstallable if there is no project file
- Installation of local releases
- Installation of indexed releases

Optional or low priority:

- Uninstallation relying on project file (local/indexed releases)
- Uninstallation of binary releases without a project file
- Using our own-created manifest during installation
- Tracking of dependencies
- To prevent uninstalls with dependents
- Or to also uninstall dependents

Out of scope:

- Installation for development (users can manually do this via alr exec -- gprinstall)

Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
45 changes: 45 additions & 0 deletions doc/user-changes.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,6 +6,51 @@ stay on top of `alr` new features.

## Release 1.3-dev

### New subcommand `alr install

PR [#1302](https://github.com/alire-project/alire/pull/1302)

A new subcommand `alr install` allows the installation of binaries to a location
intended to be added to the user's PATH. The default install location is
`$HOME/.alire`, with binaries going into `$HOME/.alire/bin`.

This is a experimental feature that will see improvements and tweaks in further
PRs and as we gather feedback on its usage.

At present, only binary releases can be installed (e.g., compilers, `gprbuild`,
`gnatprove`, `gnatstudio`). There is no ability to uninstall releases either
(but reinstallation can be forced).

Only one version per executable can be installed, meaning that, for example,
only one toolchain version can exist in an installation prefix. So, this
feature is intended to make the user's preferred version of a crate generally
available in the system for use outside of Alire, but not to replace e.g. the
ability of Alire to use several compilers, or to reuse compiled libraries as
dependencies in several workspaces.

Examples:

```
$ alr install gnatprove
ⓘ Installing gnatprove=12.1.1...
ⓘ Installation complete.

$ alr install
Installation prefix found at /home/jano/.alire
Contents:
gnatprove=12.1.1

$ PATH+=:$HOME/.alire/bin gnatprove --version
Usage: gnatprove -Pproj [switches] [-cargs switches]
...

$ alr install gnatprove^11
error: Requested release gnatprove=11.2.3 has another version already
installed: gnatprove=12.1.1. (This error can be overridden with --force.)

$ alr --force install gnatprove^11 # Downgrade installation
```

### Find dependents of a release with `alr show --dependents

PR [#1170](https://github.com/alire-project/alire/pull/1170)
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion scripts/alr-completion.bash
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ function _alr_completion() {
# Command-specific completions
$found &&\
case $cmd in
get | show | toolchain)
get | install | show | toolchain)
# Suggest crate names
COMPREPLY+=($(compgen -W "$_alr_crates" -- $curr))
;;
Expand Down
Loading