[Buildroot] [RFC PATCH v3 00/10] Make the SDK relocatable

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Hello,

this topic is still pending... some more input below...

Am 27.04.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Wolfgang Grandegger:
> Hello Arnout,
> 
> Am 12.04.2017 um 15:59 schrieb Arnout Vandecappelle:
>>
>>
>> On 23-03-17 08:54, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this is v3 of my RFC patch series to make the buildroot SDK (HOST_DIR)
>>> relocatable. It sanitizes the RPATH of all ELF files in the "target"
>>> and "host" tree using "patchelf --make-rpath-relative". I have started
>>> the mainlining process implementing "--make-rpath-relative" using
>>> GitHub pull request [1]... till now, no answer!
>>>
>>> Furthermore this patch creates the script "relocate-sdk.sh" in the top
>>> directory of the "host" tree allowing to relocate the SDK after it has
>>> been moved to a new location. It replaces the old path with the new
>>> one in all text files identified by "file --mime-type". The location
>>> is stored in "usr/share/buildroot/sdk-location".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, "qmake" uses hard-coded pathes compiled into the QT5
>>> libraries. To overcome this problem, "qt5pase" now creates "qt.conf".
>>>
>>> Other Questions:
>>>
>>> - Why do we want relative RPATHs starting with "$ORIGIN" also for ELF
>>>   files in the target tree. "/lib" and "/usr/lib" have been removed
>>>   already.
>>
>>  Good point, I don't think we want that... Neither for the ones in 
>> staging, I
>> suppose. The RPATHs there should all be absolute paths which should be
>> interpreted relative to $(TARGET_DIR) resp. $(STAGING_DIR).
> 
> Could be done, no problem. Just requires some further modifications to 

I just learned that using relative path for the target breaks "sudo", at 
least. I'm going to rework patchelf...

> patchelf. BTW, so far I have not received any response to my related 
> Github pull request... like many others:
> 
>    https://github.com/NixOS/patchelf/pulls
> 
> The project seems not really to be maintained... or I use the wrong 
> channel. In principle we could maintain your own version.

I have little hope that we can get this patch accepted. Nobody seems to 
care :(. What about maintaining our own version?

>>  I'm not entirely sure about staging, whether ld will use RPATH as an
>> alternative to -L and in that case whether it is done relative to 
>> sysroot or not.
> 
> So far, the patch series works for me very well. Just my usecase, of 
> course.
> 
>>> Things not yet addressed:
>>>
>>> - "make toolchain" creates a toolchain tree which still has references
>>>   to the build system (in ELF and text files).
>>
>>  A solution to this (and other problems) is to use the same approach as
>> check-bin-arch: do it as an instrumentation hook for each package, and 
>> only look
>> at the files added by that package. That way, the overhead is spread 
>> out over
>> the entire build process, and doing rebuilds doesn't run patchelf on 
>> all files
>> anymore in the finalize step.
> 
> This is just to solve the issue mentioned above or a general approach 
> (instead of doning rtpath sanitation at the end)?

Any opinions here?

> How should I go ahead to get this patch series accepted sooner than 
> later? We could make the option configurable, for example, to reduce the 
> risk of breaking something.

Is a relocatable SDK still on the wish list? How should/could I proceed 
to get the feature accepted sooner than later?

Wolfgang.