[Lustre-devel] Build system and portability
andreas.dilger at oracle.com
Sat Apr 24 21:41:25 PDT 2010
I'm the first one to admit that our build system is crufty. Brian
Murrell is probably going to be the second, and he is the lucky one
that knows the most about it.
The legacy is that it had to be complex in order to allow building
against both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, but that need is long gone but we
still have the complexity left behind.
I would be thrilled to have someone interested/knowledgable enough to
update it to be more normal, since you want it to be portable to Macos
and we want it to be portable to solaris and windows.
Is this something you are interested to invest some time on fixing, or
is it more a question of curiosity as to how we got into this Rube
Goldberg build system?
On 2010-04-23, at 10:27, Ken Hornstein <kenh at cmf.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> (I wanted to start some discussions on portability. This is one of
> earliest things that I ran into for the MacOS X port).
> So, the build system was one of my earliest challenges, and I wanted
> to get
> some ideas from other people.
> Aside from the various Linux-specific autoconf tests (those are
> straightforward to deal with), one big issue that has cropped up is
> way that the build system ends up building Makefiles.
> Specifically, there seems to be a disconnect between Makefile.in and
> autoMakefile.am. Let's take lustre/obdclass as an example.
> The object files for the kernel module for Linux are listed in
> (they're in the variables obdclass-linux-objs and obdclass-all-objs,
> those are combined into obdclass-objs). However, the actual
> of the modules to build get set in autoMakefile.am (by setting the
> modulefs_DATA variable).
> For MacOS X, the kext is listed under macos_PROGRAM, and the _sources_
> are listed (instead of objects). This all happens in autoMakefile.am
> (and is ifdef'd protected for DARWIN only); it doesn't use anything in
> Makefile.in. The special flags needed for MacOS X module builds are
> overridden for those builds by setting obdclass_CFLAGS (or whatever is
> the appropriate name for the module you're building).
> This feels ... inelegant to me. For one, if new source code files
> are added,
> you have to add them two places (this bit me a number of times).
> And it's
> a lot of extra work to support different OS's.
> Now I inherited this build system and it was 90% of the way there,
> so I
> can't complain about it that much. But I think we could do better.
> What do people think about what this current mess? Should it be
> What's the right way to clean this up? If it's to support module
> similar to the way Linux kernel modules are declared in the
> Makefile/autoMakefile, then I'm okay with that.
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
More information about the lustre-devel