What is the idiomatic way to write a docker file for building against many different versions of the same compiler?
I have a project which tests against a wide-range of versions of different compilers like gcc and clang as part of a CI job. At some point, the agents for the CI tasks were updated/changed, resulting in newer jobs failing -- and so I've started looking into dockerizing these builds to try to guarantee better reliability and stability.
However, I'm having some difficulty understanding what a proper and idiomatic approach is to producing build images like this without causing a large amount of duplication caused by layers.
For example, let's say I want to build using the following toolset:
gcc 4.8, 4.9, 5.1, ... (various versions)
cmake (latest)
ninja-build
I could write something like:
# syntax=docker/dockerfile:1.3-labs
# Parameterizing here possible, but would cause bloat from duplicated
# layers defined after this
FROM gcc:4.8
ENV DEBIAN_FRONTEND noninteractive
# Set the work directory
WORKDIR /home/dev
COPY . /home/dev/
# Install tools (cmake, ninja, etc)
# this will cause bloat if the FROM layer changes
RUN <<EOF
apt update
apt install -y cmake ninja-build
rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
EOF
# Default command is to use CMak
CMD ["cmake"]
However, the installation of tools like ninja-build and cmake occur after the base image, which changes per compiler version. Since these layers are built off of a different parent layer, this would (as far as I'm aware) result in layer duplication for each different compiler version that is used.
One alternative to avoid this duplication could hypothetically be using a smaller base image like alpine with separate installations of the compiler instead. The tools could be installed first so the layers remain shared, and only the compiler changes as the last layer -- however this presents its own difficulties, since it's often the case that certain compiler versions may require custom steps, such as installing certain keyrings.
What is the idiomatic way of accomplishing this? Would this typically be done through multiple docker files, or a single docker file with parameters? Any examples would be greatly appreciated.
I would separate the parts of preparing the compiler and doing the calculation, so the source doesn't become part of the docker container.
Prepare Compiler
For preparing the compiler I would take the ARG approach but without copying the data into the container. In case you wanna fast retry while having enough resources you could spin up multiple instances the same time.
ARG COMPILER=gcc:4.8
FROM ${COMPILER}
ENV DEBIAN_FRONTEND noninteractive
# Install tools (cmake, ninja, etc)
# this will cause bloat if the FROM layer changes
RUN <<EOF
apt update
apt install -y cmake ninja-build
rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
EOF
# Set the work directory
VOLUME /src
WORKDIR /src
CMD ["cmake"]
Build it
Here you have few options. You could either prepare a volume with the sources or use bind mounts together with docker exec like this:
#bash style
for compiler in gcc:4.9 gcc:4.8 gcc:5.1
do
docker build -t mytag-${compiler} --build-arg COMPILER=${compiler} .
# place to clean the target folder
docker run -v $(pwd)/src:/src mytag-${compiler}
done
And because the source is not part of the docker image you don't have bloat. You can also have two mounts, one for a readonly source tree and one for the output files.
Note: If you remove the CMake command you could also spin up the docker containers in parallel and use docker exec to start the build. The downside of this is that you have to take care of out of source builds to avoid clashes on the output folder.
put an ARG before the FROM and then invoke the ARG as the FROM
so:
ARG COMPILER=gcc:4.8
FROM ${COMPILER}
# rest goes here
then you
docker build . -t test/clang-8 --build-args COMPILER=clang-8
or similar.
If you want to automate just make a list of compilers and a bash script looping over the lines in your file, and paste the lines as inputs to the tag and COMPILER build args.
As for Cmake, I'd just do:
RUN wget -qO- "https://cmake.org/files/v3.23/cmake-3.23.1-linux-"$(uname -m)".tar.gz" | tar --strip-components=1 -xz -C /usr/local
When copying, I find it cleaner to do
WORKDIR /app/build
COPY . .
edit: formatting
As far as I know, there is no way to do that easily and safely. You could use a RUN --mount=type=cache, but the documentation clearly says that:
Contents of the cache directories persist between builder invocations without invalidating the instruction cache. Cache mounts should only be used for better performance. Your build should work with any contents of the cache directory as another build may overwrite the files or GC may clean it if more storage space is needed.
I have not tried it but I guess the layers are duplicated anyway, you just save time, assuming the cache is not emptied.
The other possible solution you have is similar to the one you mention in the question: starting with the tools installation and then customizing it with the gcc image. Instead of starting with an alpine image, you could start FROM scratch. scratch is basically the empty image, you could COPY the files generated by
RUN <<EOF
apt update
apt install -y cmake ninja-build
rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
EOF
Then you COPY the entire gcc filesystem. However, I am not sure it will work because the order of the initial layers is now reversed. This means that some files that were in the upper layer (coming from tools) now are in the lower layer and could be overwritten. In the comments, I asked you for a working Dockerfile because I wanted to try this out before answering. If you want, you can try this method and let us know. Anyway, the first step is extracting the files created from the tools layer.
How to extract changes from a layer?
Let's consider this Dockerfile and build it with docker build -t test .:
FROM debian:10
RUN apt update && apt install -y cmake && ( echo "test" > test.txt )
RUN echo "new test" > test.txt
Now that we have built the test image, we should find 3 new layers. You mainly have 2 ways to extract the changes from each layer:
the first is docker inspecting the image and then find the ids of the layers in the /var/lib/docker folder, assuming you are on Linux. Each layer has a diff subfolder containing the changes. Actually, I think it is more complex than this, that is why I would opt for...
skopeo: you can install it with apt install skopeo and it is a very useful tool to operate on docker images. The command you are interested in is copy, that extracts the layers of an image and export them as .tar:
skopeo copy docker-daemon:{image_name}:latest "dir:/home/test_img"
where image_name is test in this case.
Extracting layer content with Skopeo
In the specified folder, you should find some tar files and a configuration file (look at the skopeo copy command output and you will know which one is that). Then extract each {layer}.tar in a different folder and you are done.
Note: to find the layer containing your tools just open the configuration file (maybe using jq because it is json) and take the diff_id that corresponds to the RUN instruction you find in the history property. You should understand it once you open the JSON configuration. This is unnecessary if you have a small image that has, for example, debian as parent image and a single RUN instruction containing the tools you want to install.
Get GCC image content
Now that we have the tool layer content, we need to extract the gcc filesystem. we don't need skopeo for this one, but docker export is enough:
create a container from gcc (with the tag you need):
docker create --name gcc4.8 gcc:4.8
export it as tar:
docker export -o gcc4.8.tar gcc4.8
finally extract the tar file.
Putting all together
The final Dockerfile could be something like:
FROM scratch
COPY ./tools_layer/ /
COPY ./gcc_4.x/ /
In this way, the tools layer is always reused (unless you change the content of that folder, of course), but you can parameterize the gcc_4.x with the ARG instruction for example.
Read carefully: all of this is not tested but you might encounter 2 issues:
the gcc image overwrites some files you have changed in the tools layer. You could check if this happens by computing the diff between the gcc layer folder and the tools layer folder. If it happens, you can only keep track of that file/s and add it/them in the dockerfile after the COPY ./gcc ... with another COPY.
When in the upper layer a file is removed, docker marks that file with a .wh extension (not sure if it is different with skopeo). If in the tools layer you delete a file that exists in the gcc layer, then that file will not be deleted using the above Dockerfile (the COPY ./gcc ... instruction would overwrite the .wh). In this case too, you would need to add an additional RUN rm ... instruction.
This is probably not the correct approach if you have a more complex image that the one you are showing us. In my opinion, you could give this a try and just see if this works out with a single Dockerfile. Obviously, if you have many compilers, each one having its own tools set, the maintainability of this approach could be a real burden. Instead, if the Dockerfile is more or less linear for all the compilers, this might be good (after all, you do not do this every day).
Now the question is: is avoiding layer replication so important that you are willing to complicate the image-building process this much?
Related
Is there a difference (when it comes to image size) between
RUN make && make clean
and
RUN make
RUN make clean
Not sure how Docker works, but will the latter create an unnecessary layer?
RUN make clean as a separate step will never make your image smaller than skipping it entirely. If you're going to run it, run it in the same RUN command as the build.
More generally, each RUN command creates a new Docker image layer. Creating the layer in itself isn't expensive, but the resulting image is all of the old layers unmodified, plus the results of this step. In your case that translates to the entire build tree, plus a record that the object files should be deleted.
If you RUN make && make clean in a single step, then the layer isn't created until the entire shell command completes, so the intermediate state isn't persisted.
(Also consider Docker multi-stage builds as a way to build an application from source, but only include the built application in the final image, not any of the build tree or build tools.)
Right now, I'm trying to build a tool from source and use it to build a C++ project. I'm able to extract the tar file (gcc-arm-none-eabi). But, when I try to add it to path (using $GITHUB_PATH, not add-path), the path doesn't apply on my next action and I can't build the file. The error states that it can't find the gcc-arm-none-eabi toolset, which means that it didn't go to path.
Here's the script for the entrypoint of the first function (make is ran in the next action to allow for path to apply)
echo "Downloading ARM Toolchain"
# The one from apt isn't updated so I have to build from source
curl -L https://developer.arm.com/-/media/Files/downloads/gnu-rm/10-2020q4/gcc-arm-none-eabi-10-2020-q4-major-x86_64-linux.tar.bz2 -o gcc-arm-none-eabi.tar.bz2
tar -xjf gcc-arm-none-eabi.tar.bz2
echo "/github/workspace/gcc-arm-none-eabi-10-2020-q4-major/bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH
I can't even debug by seeing what's in the path because running echo $(PATH) just says that PATH cannot be found. What should I do?
I can't even debug by seeing what's in the path because running echo $(PATH) just says that PATH cannot be found. What should I do?
First, PATH is not a command so if you want to print its value, it would be something like echo "${PATH}" or echo "$PATH"
Then, if you want to add a value to an existing environment variable, it would be something like
export PATH="${PATH}:/github/workspace/gcc-arm-none-eabi-10-2020-q4-major/bin"
EDIT: seems not a valid way to add something to the path using Github Actions, meanwhile it seems correct in the question. To get more details: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team#latest/actions/reference/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#adding-a-system-path . Thanks to Benjamin W. for pointing this out in the comments.
Finally I think it would be a better fit if you use a docker image that already contains that kind of dependancies (you could easily write your own Dockerfile if this image doesn't already exists). Github action is designed to use docker (or OCI containers) image that contains the dependancies you need to perform your build actions. You should take a look here: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team#latest/actions/creating-actions/dockerfile-support-for-github-actions
I need to run npm install && gulp build inside my static/semantic-ui folder, so it creates the needed css file.
I saw this example with Setup.hs, however on my scaffolded project I don't have it, so my question where is the right place to put the code to run those bash commands.
If you're using the default Yesod scaffolding (generated by stack tool), then it indeed doesn't contain Setup.hs (which is a bit weird, as their own guide - https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/blob/master/doc/GUIDE.md - recommends having it as a good practice)
Setup.hs should be located in main project directory (same where stack.yml and yourproject.cabal are located) and content should be roughly the same as in your included example (defaultMainWithHooks is the key part).
Details of hooks usage are specified in https://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html and in cabal spec: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.24.0.0/docs/Distribution-Simple.html
BTW, for now stack doesn't support pre-build hooks on its own (for details see: https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/503), so you have to stick to ones provided by cabal - that's where Setup.hs comes from.
I'm the author of a utilty that makes compressing projects using zip a bit easier, especially when you have to compress regularly, such as for updating projects submitted to an application store (like Chrome's Web Store).
I'm attempting to make quite a few improvements, but have run into an issue, described below.
A Quick Overview
My utility's command format is similar to command OPTIONS DEST DIR1 {DIR2 DIR3 DIR4...}. It works by running zip -r DEST.zip DIR1; a fairly simple process. The benefit to my utility, however, is the ability to use a predetermined file (think .gitignore) to ignore specific files/directories, or files/directories which match a pattern.
It's pretty simple -- if the "ignorefile" exists in a target directory (DIR1, DIR2, DIR3, etc), my utility will add exclusions to the zip -r DEST.zip DIR1 command using the pattern -x some_file or -x some_dir/*.
The Issue
I am running into an issue with directory exclusion, however, and I can't quite figure out why (this is probably be because I am still quite the sh novice). I'll run through some examples:
Let's say that I want to ignore two things in my project directory: .git/* and .gitignore. Running command foo.zip project_dir builds the following command:
zip -r foo.zip project -x project/.git/\* -x project/.gitignore
Woohoo! Success! Well... not quite.
In this example, .gitignore is not added to the compressed output file, foo.zip. The directory, .git/*, and all of it's subdirectories (and files) are added to the compressed output file.
Manually running the command:
zip -r foo.zip project_dir -x project/.git/\* -x project/.gitignore
Works as expected, of course, so naturally I am pretty puzzled as to why my identical, but dynamically-built command, does not work.
Attempted Resolutions
I have attempted a few different methods of resolving this to no avail:
Removing -x project/.git/\* from the command, and instead adding each subdirectory and file within that directory, such as -x project/.git/config -x project/.git/HEAD, etc (including children of subdirectories)
Removing the backslash before the asterisk, so that the resulting exclusion option within the command is -x project/.git/*
Bashing my head on the keyboard in angst (I'm really surprised this didn't work, it usually does)
Some notes
My utility uses /bin/sh; I would prefer to keep it that way for maximum compatibility.
I am aware of the git archive feature -- my use of .git/* and .gitignore in the above example is simply as an example; my utility is not dependent on git nor is used exclusively for projects which are git repositories.
I suspected the problem would be in the evaluation of the generated command, since you said the same command when executed directly did right.
So as the comment section says, I think you already found the correct solution. This happens because if you run that variable directly, some things like globs can be expanded directly, instead of passed to the command. And arguments may be messed up, depending on the situation.
Yes, in that case:
eval $COMMAND
is the way to go.
I'm creating a simple RPM installer, I just have to copy files to a directory structure I create in the %install process.
The %install process is fine, I create the following folder /opt/company/application/ with the command mkdir -p %{buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} and then I proceed to copy the files and subdirectories from my package. I've tried to install it and it works.
The doubt I have comes when uninstalling. I want to remove the folder /opt/company/application/ and I thought you're supposed to use %{buildroot} anywhere when referencing the install location. Because my understanding is the user might have a different structure and you can't assume that rmdir /opt/company/%{name}/ will work. Using that command in the %postun section deletes succesfully the directories whereas using rmdir ${buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} doesn't delete the folders.
My question is, shouldn't you be using ${buildroot} in the %postun in order to get the proper install location? If that's not the case, why?
Don't worry about it. If you claim the directory as your own in the %files section, RPM will handle it for you.
FYI, %{buildroot} probably won't exist on the target machine.