changing pharo packaging in linux

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

changing pharo packaging in linux

EstebanLM
Hi,

Last weeks I was fighting with library dependency problems on linux distributions and at the end I came to the conclusion that the only way to guarantee that our own dependencies will be found first than OS versions (which can have problems for us when we choose to distribute a library by our own) is to add library directory to LD_LIBRARY_PATH before the execution.

Now, I added that  to zeroconf and that’s working fine, but now we have the problem of the “non zeroconf” distributions.

I checked how to add this and well, turns out that “old way” of distributions, from the standard builds of os-vm (we changed it like 5 years ago) already have something like that. The osvm for linux has this structure:

./pharo
./lib
./lib/5.0-201703221605
./lib/5.0-201703221605/* //All binaries and libraries here
./bin
./bin/pharo

thing is: here ./pharo is an script who mades all we need.

So, instead reinventing the wheel I want to go back to this structure… I do not think it will imply anything to anyone, but I wanted to let you know :)

cheers,
Esteban
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: changing pharo packaging in linux

Ben Coman
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Last weeks I was fighting with library dependency problems on linux distributions and at the end I came to the conclusion that the only way to guarantee that our own dependencies will be found first than OS versions (which can have problems for us when we choose to distribute a library by our own) is to add library directory to LD_LIBRARY_PATH before the execution.
>
> Now, I added that  to zeroconf and that’s working fine, but now we have the problem of the “non zeroconf” distributions.
>
> I checked how to add this and well, turns out that “old way” of distributions, from the standard builds of os-vm (we changed it like 5 years ago) already have something like that. The osvm for linux has this structure:
>
> ./pharo
> ./lib
> ./lib/5.0-201703221605
> ./lib/5.0-201703221605/* //All binaries and libraries here
> ./bin
> ./bin/pharo
>
> thing is: here ./pharo is an script who mades all we need.
>
> So, instead reinventing the wheel I want to go back to this structure… I do not think it will imply anything to anyone, but I wanted to let you know :)
>
> cheers,
> Esteban


Can you consider this for our startup script...
  Generalise determination of LD_LIBRARY_PATH in squeak run script
  https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/15

Last time I downloaded Squeak this hadn't filtered through to their packaging
and their startup script bombed on my 32-bit Debian 8 Jessie.

cheers -ben


P.S if time permits, could you also action out this..
  Download PharoXXX.sources if its not found in the usual location.
  https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/79

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: changing pharo packaging in linux

EstebanLM

On 17 Mar 2017, at 04:46, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

Last weeks I was fighting with library dependency problems on linux distributions and at the end I came to the conclusion that the only way to guarantee that our own dependencies will be found first than OS versions (which can have problems for us when we choose to distribute a library by our own) is to add library directory to LD_LIBRARY_PATH before the execution.

Now, I added that  to zeroconf and that’s working fine, but now we have the problem of the “non zeroconf” distributions.

I checked how to add this and well, turns out that “old way” of distributions, from the standard builds of os-vm (we changed it like 5 years ago) already have something like that. The osvm for linux has this structure:

./pharo
./lib
./lib/5.0-201703221605
./lib/5.0-201703221605/* //All binaries and libraries here
./bin
./bin/pharo

thing is: here ./pharo is an script who mades all we need.

So, instead reinventing the wheel I want to go back to this structure… I do not think it will imply anything to anyone, but I wanted to let you know :)

cheers,
Esteban


Can you consider this for our startup script...
 Generalise determination of LD_LIBRARY_PATH in squeak run script
 https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/15

this is already merged, isn’t? 
then is already in “my script” (what I was proposing is to use the osvm script) :)


Last time I downloaded Squeak this hadn't filtered through to their packaging
and their startup script bombed on my 32-bit Debian 8 Jessie.

cheers -ben


P.S if time permits, could you also action out this..
 Download PharoXXX.sources if its not found in the usual location.
 https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/79


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: changing pharo packaging in linux

Ben Coman


On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 17 Mar 2017, at 04:46, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

Last weeks I was fighting with library dependency problems on linux distributions and at the end I came to the conclusion that the only way to guarantee that our own dependencies will be found first than OS versions (which can have problems for us when we choose to distribute a library by our own) is to add library directory to LD_LIBRARY_PATH before the execution.

Now, I added that  to zeroconf and that’s working fine, but now we have the problem of the “non zeroconf” distributions.

I checked how to add this and well, turns out that “old way” of distributions, from the standard builds of os-vm (we changed it like 5 years ago) already have something like that. The osvm for linux has this structure:

./pharo
./lib
./lib/5.0-201703221605
./lib/5.0-201703221605/* //All binaries and libraries here
./bin
./bin/pharo

thing is: here ./pharo is an script who mades all we need.

So, instead reinventing the wheel I want to go back to this structure… I do not think it will imply anything to anyone, but I wanted to let you know :)

cheers,
Esteban


Can you consider this for our startup script...
 Generalise determination of LD_LIBRARY_PATH in squeak run script
 https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/15

this is already merged, isn’t? 

in osvm, yes. 
  
then is already in “my script” (what I was proposing is to use the osvm script) :)

cool, just checking. 
Not too long ago it was missing from the Squeak download.  
cheers -ben

btw, I just checked Squeak again and actually its script is now completely different,
not setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH at all.

 


Last time I downloaded Squeak this hadn't filtered through to their packaging
and their startup script bombed on my 32-bit Debian 8 Jessie.

cheers -ben


P.S if time permits, could you also action out this..
 Download PharoXXX.sources if its not found in the usual location.
 https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/79



Loading...