We need to create our own OS using freebsd source code without any additional directories like /opt, /home and few. Is there any way to remove directory structure creation from freebsd source code.
The most straightforward way is to write a post-install script that removes stuff you don't need.
You can also change the build system (Makefiles) to install things into desired locations, this is harder and will require additional work when updating FreeBSD source to newer version.
Related
I'm zipping a pre-built (no source/object files) binary application for distribution. The binary application requires a couple of libraries not included by default. The only way I seem to be able to get the application to start on the end-user is by including a run.sh that sets the library path to the current directory:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
./MyApp.out
However, I'd really like to allow the user to just unzip the zip and doubleclick MyApp.out (without the shell script). Can I edit MyApp.out to search the current directory for the library? I've done something similar on OSX using install_name_tool, but that tool isn't available here.
You want to set the rpath. See this answer. So link using
gcc yourobjects*.o -L/some/lib/dir/ -lsome -Wl,-rpath,.
But you might want even to use -Wl,-rpath,$PWD or perhaps -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN'. See this.
You could also (and this should work for a pre-built executable) configure your /etc/ld.so.conf by adding a line there with an absolute path (of the directory containing the lib), then running ldconfig -v ... See ldconfig(8)
I would suggest adding /usr/local/lib into /etc/ld.so.conf and making a symlink from /usr/local/lib/libfoo.so to e.g. $HOME/libfoo.so etc... (then run ldconfig ...). I don't think adding a user specific directory to /etc/ld.so.conf is reasonable ...
PS. What you really want is to package your application (e.g. as a *.deb package for Debian or Ubuntu, or an *.rpm for Fedora or Redhat). Package management systems handle dependencies!
If I start a new distro (e.g. LFS):
How can I change the directory structure?
What should I expect after it's ready? (probably can't install most of the packages without modification, right?
But, before you down vote: I've been asked to make a new distro for a specific project which they need (actually, want) a new directory structure with a few changes, for example remove the var and bin directories, but without halting the system. The application of this distro is so limited, so i think it shouldn't be a big deal as they need just a few packages to be installed.
These are few pointers that come to my mind and definitely it is not complete:
Your PATH should be updated in the startup scripts like ~/.bashrc, /etc/profile.d, and so on to reflect the updated directories.
Configuration files tend to use /var quite often. (/var/log, /var/tmp) You'd need to modify all these location references.
Basically your kernel is going to start /sbin/init which is going to start the initialization at /etc/rc.d or equivalent. If you start tracing all the scripts and services invoked in these startup scripts, I believe you should be able to capture all the places you'd need to modify the path names.
you can create a folder called system and the move all the files into the /system folder. and after that create symlinks, so the system can still be used. example:
su -i
cd /
mkdir system
mv /usr /system/usr
ln -s /system/usr /usr
I just did it........it broke my system XD (i think it was because i moved all the files into /system , including /boot witch is used by GRUB)
The chance of breaking the system is huge if you don't have background knowledge. Example if you move /bin to /system/bin, then you won't be able to create the symlink afterwards because the ln command (which is a program) is located in the /bin folder so moving it will end up in an error.
also, check out gobolinux.org which is based around what i just did. The entire system has been reorganized and to maintain compatibility, they have created symlinks so that they don't have to reprogram an app when porting applications.
In short: This question is basically about telling Linux to load the development version of the .so file for executables in the dev directory and the installed .so file for others.
In long: Imagine a shared library, let's call it libasdf.so. And imagine the following directories:
/home/user/asdf/lib: libasdf.so
/home/user/asdf/test: ... perform_test
/opt/asdf/lib: libasdf.so
/home/user/jkl: ... use_asdf
In other words, you have a development directory for your library (/home/user/asdf) and you have an installed copy of its previous stable version (/opt/asdf) and some other programs using it (/home/user/jkl).
My question is, how can I tell Linux, to load /home/user/asdf/lib/libasdf.so when executing /home/user/asdf/test/perform_test and to load /opt/asdf/lib/libasdf.so when executing /home/user/jkl/use_asdf? Note that, even though I specify the directory by -L during link, Linux uses other methods (for example /ect/ld.so.conf and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH) to find the .so file.
The reason I need such a thing is that, of course the executables in the development directory need to link with the latest version of the library, while the other programs, would want to use the stable version.
Putting ../lib in the library path doesn't seem like a secure idea, not to mention not completely correct since you can't run the test from a different directory.
One solution I thought about is to have perform_test link with libasdf-dev.so and upon install, copy libasdf-dev.so as libasdf.so and have others link with that. This solution has one problem though. Imagine the following additional directory:
/home/user/asdf/tool: ... use_asdf_too
Which gets installed to:
/opt/asdf/bin: use_asdf_too
In my solution, it is unknown what use_asdf_too should be linked against. If linked against libasdf.so, it wouldn't work properly if invoked from the dev directory and if linked against libasdf-dev.so, it wouldn't work properly if invoked from the installed location.
What can I do? How is this managed by other people?
Installed shared objects usually don't just end with ".so". Usually they also include their soname, such as libadsf.so.42.1. The .so file for development is typically a symlink to a fully-versioned filename. The linker will look for the .so file and resolve it to the full filename, and the loader will then load the fully-versioned library instead.
I have an application that relies on Qt, GDCM, and VTK, with the main build environment being Qt. All of these libraries are cross-platform and compile on Windows, Mac, and Linux. I need to deploy the application to Linux after deploying on Windows. The versions of vtk and gdcm I'm using are trunk versions from git (about a month old), more recent than what I can get apt-get on Ubuntu 11.04, which is my current (and only) Linux deployment target.
What is the accepted method for deploying an application that relies on these kinds of libraries?
Should I be statically linking here, to avoid LD_LIBRARY_PATH? I see conflicting reports on LD_LIBRARY_PATH; tutorials like this one suggest that it's the 'right way' to modify the library path to use shared libraries through system reboots. Others suggest that I should never set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. In the default version of GDCM, the installation already puts libraries into the /usr/local/lib directory, so those libraries get seen when I run ldd <my program>. VTK, on the other hand, puts its libraries into /usr/local/lib/vtk-5.9, which is not part of the LD_LIBRARY_PATH on most user's machines, and so is not found unless some change is made to the system. Copying the VTK files into '/usr/local/lib' does not allow 'ldd' to see the files.
So, how can I make my application see VTK to use the libraries?
On windows, deploying the dlls is very straightforward, because I can just include them in the installer, and the application finds them because they are in the local directory. That approach does not work in Linux, so I was going to have the users install Qt, GDCM, and VTK from whatever appropriate source and use the default locations, and then have the application point to those default locations. However, since VTK is putting things into a non-standard location, should I also expect users to modify LD_LIBRARY_PATH? Should I include the specific versions of the libraries that I want and then figure out how to make the executable look in the local directory for those libraries and ignore the ones it finds in the library path?
Every "serious" commercial application I have ever seen uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH. They invariably include a shell script that looks something like this:
#!/bin/sh
here="${0%/*}" # or you can use `dirname "$0"`
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$here"/lib:"$LD_LIBRARY_PATH"
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
exec "$0".bin "$#"
They name this script something like .wrapper and create a directory tree that looks like this:
.wrapper
lib/ (directory full of .so files)
app1 -> .wrapper (symlink)
app1.bin (executable)
app2 -> .wrapper (symlink)
app2.bin (executable)
Now you can copy this whole tree to wherever you want, and you can run "/path/to/tree/app1" or "/path/to/tree/app2 --with --some --arguments" and it will work. So will putting /path/to/tree in your PATH.
Incidentally, this is also how Firefox and Chrome do it, more or less.
Whoever told you not to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH is full of it, IMHO.
Which system libraries you want to put in lib depends on which Linux versions you want to officially support.
Do not even think about static linking. The glibc developers do not like it, they do not care about supporting it, and they somehow manage to break it a little harder with every release.
Good luck.
In general, you're best off depending on the 'normal' versions of the libraries for whatever distribution you're targetting (and saying you don't support dists that don't support recent enough versions of the lib), but if you REALLY need to depend on a bleeding edge version of some shared lib, you can link your app with -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN' and then install a copy of the exact version you want in the same directory as your executable.
Note that if you use make, you'll need $$ in the makefile to get a single $ into the argument that is actually sent to the linker. The single qutoes are needed so the shell doesn't munge things...
Well, there are two options for deploying Linux application.
The correct way:
make a package for your app and for the libraries, if they are so special, that they can't be installed from standard repositories
There are two major package formats. RPM and DEB.
The easy way:
make a self-extract file that will install the "windows way" into /opt.
You can have libraries in the same directory as the executable, it's just not the preferred way.
I've written a C++ program (command line, portable code) and I'm trying to release a Linux version at the same time as the Windows version. I've written a makefile as follows:
ayane: *.cpp *.h
g++ -Wno-write-strings -oayane *.cpp
Straightforward enough so far; but I'm given to understand it's customary to have a second step, make install. So when I put the install: target in the makefile... what command should be associated with it? (If possible I'd prefer it to work on all Unix systems as well as Linux.)
Installation
A less trivial installer will copy several things into place, first insuring that the appropriate paths exists (using mkdir -p or similar). Typically something like this:
the executable goes in $INSTALL_PATH/bin
any libraries built for external consumption go in $INSTALL_PATH/lib or $INSTALL_PATH/lib/yourappname
man pages go in $INSTALL_PATH/share/man/man1 and possibly other sections if appropriate
other docs go in $INSTALL_PATH/share/yourappname
default configuration files go in $INSTALL_PATH/etc/yourappname
headers for other to link against go in $INSTALL_PATH/include/yourappname
Installation path
The INSTALL_PATH is an input to the build system, and usually defaults to /usr/local. This gives your user the flexibility to install under their $HOME without needing elevated permission.
In the simplest case just use
INSTALL_PATH?=/usr/local
at the top of the makefile. Then the user can override it by setting an environment variable in their shell.
Deinstallation
You also occasionally see make installs that build a manifest to help with de-installation. The manifest can even be written as a script to do the work.
Another approach is just to have a make uninstall that looks for the things make install places, and removes them if they exist.
In the simplest case you just copy the newly created executable into the /usr/local/bin path. Of course, it's usually more complicated than that.
Notice that most of these operations require special rights, which is why make install is usually invoked using sudo.
make install is usually the step that "installs" the binary into the correct place.
For example, when compiling Vim, make install may place it in /usr/local/bin
Not all Makefiles have a make install