Meson/Ninja provide an easy method to run a script at install time.
For example, this line will tell Meson to run the glib-compile-schemas command to compile the GSettings on Linux (system configuration options).
meson.add_install_script('glib-compile-schemas', schemas_dir)
(this command will be automatically run when the user executes ninja install)
How can I tell Meson to run a custom command at uninstall?
In this specific case I would like to delete (or at least reset to default) the key-value pairs in GSettings. To reset them, I have found that the command is gsettings reset-recursively <path> (successfully tested in terminal).
Adding custom uninstall script is still being discussed, it's proposed quite some time ago but not yet implemented. It looks this task is typically left for package manager (and therefore to corresponding packaged scripts).
But I agree, there is some illogical asymmetry in case of meson install command. As a workaround, you can create your own target:
run_target('my-uninstall', command : ['scripts/uninstall.sh'])
The drawbacks, of course, are that it should be invoked explicitly, cannot override, append or rename internal uninstall target and script should have executable permissions.
The internal, reserved uninstall target, however, does revert all explicit install operations:
Meson allows you to uninstall an install step by invoking the
uninstall target. This will remove all files installed as part of
install. Note that this does not restore the original files. This also
does not undo changes done by custom install scripts (because they can
do arbitrary install operations).
Related
I've inherited a fairly large project that is built using autoconfigure/automake (the configure.ac/Makefile.am files have their own issues, but that's a separate question).
My problem is that a top level build + build install generates several static and dynamic libs as well as binaries. So far so good. The problem is that 'make install' will indiscriminately copy over every single one of those libs/bins. (This takes a while)
I'd like it to only copy over libs/bins that have changed - potentially by comparing the md5sum of the target and source files.
How can i hook this up in my configure.ac/Makefile.am?
The actual program to copy the files is install (usually /usr/bin/install); this is defined in the INSTALL Make-variable.
Your install implementation might support the -C flag:
-C, --compare
compare each pair of source and destination files,
and in some cases, do not modify the destination at all
you might have to
So you could try to provide a script that does what you want (compare the source file with the destination file, and only copy if needed), by overriding this variable.
You could also just injec tthe -C flag, to see if it gives you any speedup (I tend to agree with ldav1s' comment that it might not):
make install INSTALL="/usr/bin/install -C"
note, that install accepts quite a number of arguments, and if you are going to re-implement a compatible script, you might have to implement some sub-set thereof.
I am cannot figure out how to load MPI modules a user in Fedora.
I am using fish shell and I dont know if there will be any issues with loading a module compared to bash shell
How I am trying to load MPI modules is
lumx#localhost ~> sudo module load mpi
[sudo] password for lumx:
sudo: module: command not found
lumx#localhost ~>
Also is there a way to load them during start up so i wont have to worry about loading modules again.
Fedora distributes few MPI distributions: OpenMPI and MPICH at least.
If you just install the packages, your environment is not properly set so that you can directly use the software.
However, there is one package for each distribution, which loads the required module that sets up your environment properly. For the case of MPICH is mpich-autoload.
On the other side, module command is neither a binary nor a script file, so $PATH value should not affect. It does not require admin rights, so you can use it in user mode directly.
Finally, I recommend you to check which modules are available in your system by running
$ module avail
I managed to solve the problem.
I just added /usr/lib64/openmpi/bin/ to my user paths. I don't know if this is the right solution instead of loading modules.
set -U fish_user_paths /usr/lib64/openmpi/bin/ $fish_user_paths
I am trying to compile Network.HTTP (http://hackage.haskell.org/package/network) on win32/cygwin. However, it does fail with following message:
Setup.hs: Missing dependency on a foreign library:
* Missing (or bad) header file: HsNet.h
This problem can usually be solved by installing the system package that
provides this library (you may need the "-dev" version). If the library is
already installed but in a non-standard location then you can use the flags
--extra-include-dirs= and --extra-lib-dirs= to specify where it is.
If the header file does exist, it may contain errors that are caught by the C
compiler at the preprocessing stage. In this case you can re-run configure
with the verbosity flag -v3 to see the error messages.
Unfortuntely it does not give more clues. The HsNet.h includes sys/uio.h which, actually should not be included, and should be configurered correctly.
Don't use cygwin, instead follow Johan Tibells way
Installing MSYS
Install the latest Haskell Platform. Use the default settings.
Download version 1.0.11 of MSYS. You'll need the following files:
MSYS-1.0.11.exe
msysDTK-1.0.1.exe
msysCORE-1.0.11-bin.tar.gz
The files are all hosted on haskell.org as they're quite hard to find in the official MinGW/MSYS repo.
Run MSYS-1.0.11.exe followed by msysDTK-1.0.1.exe. The former asks you if you want to run a normalization step. You can skip that.
Unpack msysCORE-1.0.11-bin.tar.gz into C:\msys\1.0. Note that you can't do that using an MSYS shell, because you can't overwrite the files in use, so make a copy of C:\msys\1.0, unpack it there, and then rename the copy back to C:\msys\1.0.
Add C:\Program Files\Haskell Platform\VERSION\mingw\bin to your PATH. This is neccesary if you ever want to build packages that use a configure script, like network, as configure scripts need access to a C compiler.
These steps are what Tibell uses to compile the Network package for win and I have used this myself successfully several times on most of the haskell platform releases.
It is possible to build network on win32/cygwin. And the above steps, though useful (by Jonke) may not be necessary.
While doing the configuration step, specify
runghc Setup.hs configure --configure-option="--build=mingw32"
So that the library is configured for mingw32, else you will get link or "undefined references" if you try to link or use network library.
This combined with #Yogesh Sajanikar's answer made it work for me (on win64/cygwin):
Make sure the gcc on your path is NOT the Mingw/Cygwin one, but the
C:\ghc\ghc-6.12.1\mingw\bin\gcc.exe
(Run
export PATH="/cygdrive/.../ghc-7.8.2/mingw/bin:$PATH"
before running cabal install network in the Cygwin shell)
I'm trying to build my own package using Windows. I installed everything I need, and running R CMD build mypackage and R CMD INSTALL mypackage seem to run fine. when I run the build command, though, I get a warning from cygwin:
cygwin warning:
MS-DOS style path detected: C:/Documents and Settings/e_sander/My Documents/mypackage_1.0.tar.gz
Preferred POSIX equivalent is: /cygdrive/c/Documents and Settings/e_sander/My Documents/mypackage_1.0.tar.gz
CYGWIN environment variable option "nodosfilewarning"turns off this warning. Consult the user's guide for more details about POSIX paths:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#using-pathnames
I did go to the recommended website, but I don't know much about cygwin or linux so I'm not sure there's anything I need to do. I realize that using the MS-DOS style path is deprecated and not recommended in cygwin, but I'm not sure how to change that, since I'm running Windows and that's the path I need. I also haven't noticed any problems with my package, at least when I install it to my computer (and although I haven't used the tarball, I've opened it and everything looks fine). So here's what I'm trying to figure out:
Does leaving the path as is affect my package in any way?
If so, how could it adversely affect my package?
How do I change the path to make cygwin happy?
This is just a warning and it tells you how to disable it. It doesn't affect anything. If you want it to go away, run this from your shell:
export CYGWIN="nodosfilewarning"
Or you could mount C: to /c/ (see man mount).
Does leaving the path as is affect my package in any way?
- No, it is just a warning.
If so, how could it adversely affect my package?
- N/A
How do I change the path to make cygwin happy?
- Set the environment variable as the output states. There are multiple ways to do this; I chose to go with a solution that handles the issue across any invoked environment that parses or inherits from the windows environment by using the "Rapid Environment Editor" program to add a User Variable named CYGWIN with a value nodosfilewarning. But if you wanted you could add it through the control panel using Add environment variables for your account.
Every time you compile something from source, you go through the same 3 steps:
$ ./configure
$ make
$ make install
I understand, that it makes sense to divide the installing process into different steps, but I don't get it, why each and every coder on this planet has to write the same three commands again and again just to get one single job done. From my point of view it would make totally sense to have a ./install.sh script automatically delivered with the source code which contains the following text:
#!/bin/sh
./configure
make
make install
why would people do the 3 steps separately?
Because each step does different things
Prepare(setup) environment for building
./configure
This script has lots of options that you should change. Like --prefix or --with-dir=/foo. That means every system has a different configuration. Also ./configure checks for missing libraries that should be installed. Anything wrong here causes not to build your application. That's why distros have packages that are installed on different places, because every distro thinks it's better to install certain libraries and files to certain directories. It is said to run ./configure, but in fact you should change it always.
For example have a look at the Arch Linux packages site. Here you'll see that any package uses a different configure parameter (assume they are using autotools for the build system).
Building the system
make
This is actually make all by default. And every make has different actions to do. Some do building, some do tests after building, some do checkout from external SCM repositories. Usually you don't have to give any parameters, but again some packages execute them differently.
Install to the system
make install
This installs the package in the place specified with configure. If you want you can specify ./configure to point to your home directory. However, lots of configure options are pointing to /usr or /usr/local. That means then you have to use actually sudo make install because only root can copy files to /usr and /usr/local.
Now you see that each step is a pre-requirement for next step. Each step is a preparation to make things work in a problemless flow. Distros use this metaphor to build packages (like RPM, deb, etc.).
Here you'll see that each step is actually a different state. That's why package managers have different wrappers. Below is an example of a wrapper that lets you build the whole package in one step. But remember that each application has a different wrapper (actually these wrappers have a name like spec, PKGBUILD, etc.):
def setup:
... #use ./configure if autotools is used
def build:
... #use make if autotools is used
def install:
... #use make all if autotools is used
Here one can use autotools, that means ./configure, make and make install. But another one can use SCons, Python related setup or something different.
As you see splitting each state makes things much easier for maintaining and deployment, especially for package maintainers and distros.
First, it should be ./configure && make && make install since each depends on the success of the former. Part of the reason is evolution and part of the reason is convenience for the development workflow.
Originally, most Makefiles would only contain the commands to compile a program and installation was left to the user. An extra rule allows make install to place the compiled output in a place that might be correct; there are still plenty of good reasons that you might not want to do this, including not being the system administrator, not want to install it at all. Moreover, if I am developing the software, I probably don't want to install it. I want to make some changes and test the version sitting in my directory. This becomes even more salient if I'm going to have multiple versions lying around.
./configure goes and detects what is available in the environment and/or is desired by the user to determine how to build the software. This is not something that needs to change very often and can often take some time. Again, if I am a developer, it's not worth the time to reconfigure constantly. More importantly, since make uses timestamps to rebuild modules, if I rerun configure there is a possibility that flags will change and now some of the components in my build will be compile with one set of flags and others with a different set of flags that might lead to different, incompatible behaviour. So long as I don't rerun configure, I know that my compilation environment remains the same even if I change my sources. If I rerun configure, I should make clean first, to remove any built sources to ensure things are built uniformly.
The only case where the three command are run in a row are when users install the program or a package is built (e.g., Debian's debuild or RedHat's rpmbuild). And that assumes that the package can be given a plain configure, which is not usually the case for packaging, where, at least, --prefix=/usr is desired. And pacakgers are like to have to deal with fake-roots when doing the make install part. Since there are lots of exceptions, making ./configure && make && make install the rule would be inconvenient for a lot of people who do it on a far more frequent basis!
configure may fail if it finds that dependencies are missing.
make runs a default target, the first one listed in the Makefile. Often this target is all, but not always. So you could only make all install if you knew that was the target.
So ...
#!/bin/sh
if ./configure $*; then
if make; then
make install
fi
fi
or:
./configure $* && ./make && ./make install
The $* is included because one often has to provide options to configure.
But why not just let people do it themselves? Is this really such a big win?
Firstly ./configure doesn't always find everything that it needs, or in other cases it finds everything it requires but not everything it could use. In that case you would want to know about it (and your ./install.sh script would fail anyway!) The classic example of non-failure with unintended consequences, from my point of view, is compiling large applications like ffmpeg or mplayer. These will use libraries if they are available but will compile anyway if they aren't, leaving some options disabled. The problem is that you then discover later that it was compiled without support for some format or another, thus requiring you to go back and redo it.
Another thing ./configure does somewhat interactively is giving you the option to customise where on the system the application will be installed. Different distributions/environments have different conventions, and you would probably want to stick to the convention on your system. Also, you might want to install it locally (solely for yourself). Traditionally the ./configure and make steps aren't run as root, while make install (unless it is installed solely for yourself) has to be run as root.
Specific distributions often provide scripts that perform this ./install.sh functionality in a distribution-sensitive manner - for example, source RPMs + spec file + rpmbuild or slackbuilds.
(Footnote: that being said, I agree that ./configure; make; make install; can get extremely tedious.)