Dockerfile: install picolibc & ARM/RISC-V GCC via package manager#116
Dockerfile: install picolibc & ARM/RISC-V GCC via package manager#116bors[bot] merged 3 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
Conversation
|
didn't upstream miss risc-v support? |
|
I've been compile-testing for the https://packages.debian.org/testing/picolibc-riscv64-unknown-elf |
|
somehow this failed all builds on travis. |
|
Yes because I was wrong about the packages having no dependencies. We can't just |
|
@benpicco should we push this? how can I help? |
benpicco
force-pushed
the
picolibc-deb
branch
from
23e5b29 to
21dbd18
Compare
|
Ah the problem is still that we install the compilers from outside the package manager, so the dependency of the picolibc package is not met. For ARM, the 2019q4 version of GCC 9 we install manually is also available on focal, but for RISC-V our GCC 10.1.0-1.1 is a bit newer than what focal has in store. |
benpicco
force-pushed
the
picolibc-deb
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4e3f09f to
ea3663c
Compare
|
Looks like it worked this time! |
|
bors try |
|
ok, but we're switching to the ubuntu gcc packages completely. do we want that? |
tryBuild succeeded: |
benpicco
changed the title
benpicco
changed the title
benpicco
force-pushed
the
picolibc-deb
branch
from
ea3663c to
27b8951
Compare
tryBuild succeeded: |
|
I don't really like that this switches to ubuntu's version of arm gcc :/ |
|
What's wrong with it? |
how has it been compiled? we've been using the arm toolchain for years. and the ubuntu one used to have quirks (I remember the small enum thing? or was that debian?). |
|
I don't know, I've always just used the toolchain provided in the Ubuntu repository. (And we enable small enums ourselves in the build system) |
This reverts commit 828c078.
benpicco
force-pushed
the
picolibc-deb
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e22ba4d to
2d2894e
Compare
|
I would expect that most users are installing the toolchain from their distribution's repository as it's customary on Linux. I didn't have any issues with using it for the past years. Mind you that the source we are pulling from is deprecated and if we want to upgrade to a new version we'll have to adapt the build script. I'm not keen on doing this tedious work when we could as well just install it from the repo instead. |
|
If there are indeed issues with the Ubuntu toolchain, it would be IMO in our best interest to address them by getting fixes upstream into the Ubuntu repos. Ubuntu is very much the most popular Linux distro and Ubuntu user will use the toolchain that is packaged for Ubuntu. We have to deal with this in any case. For me, it would also be easier to be able to reproduce the issues Ubuntu users have by just passing |
|
ok, let's do it |
benpicco
force-pushed
the
picolibc-deb
branch
from
2d2894e to
1afc188
Compare
|
@maribu your call when to merge this (to not change riotdocker during release) |
|
bors merge |
1 similar comment
|
bors merge |
|
Already running a review |
|
bors ping |
|
pong |
|
Build succeeded: |
|
Thank you! |
220: Revert "Merge #116" r=aabadie a=kaspar030 It pains me a lot but the bad debian newlib package won't be fixed in time for the hard freeze, and neither will we sort out the issues with picolibc as default, in the week before x-mas. :( This reverts commit 20529a8 (#116), reversing changes made to 604bc23. Co-authored-by: Kaspar Schleiser <kaspar@schleiser.de>
3 participants
There seems to be a problem with the picolibc install in riotdocker. (#109 (comment))
Instead of trying to sort that out by ourself, just use the package provided by Debian. It has
no dependenciesthe respective gcc packages as dependencies.So instead of manually downloading the toolchain, also install that from the repository.