From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: `make check` doesn't pass on MacOS Catalina |
Date: | 2022-08-06 16:10:55 |
Message-ID: | ab361069-0d6d-20f7-7f4d-7313325c8fcf@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-08-06 Sa 11:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I came across this when I was working on setting up some Dockerfiles for
>> the buildfarm. Apparently LD_LIBRARY_PATH doesn't work on Alpine, at
>> least out of the box, as it uses a different linker, and "make check"
>> relies on it (or the moral equivalent) if "make install" hasn't been run.
> I did some quick googling on this point. We seem not to be the only
> project having linking issues on Alpine, and yet it does support
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH according to some fairly authoritative-looking pages, eg
>
> https://www.musl-libc.org/doc/1.0.0/manual.html
>
> I suspect the situation is similar to macOS, ie there is some limitation
> somewhere on whether LD_LIBRARY_PATH gets passed through. If memory
> serves, the problem on SIP-enabled Mac is that DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH is
> cleared upon invoking bash, so that we lose it anywhere that "make"
> invokes a shell to run a subprogram. (Hmm ... I wonder whether ninja
> uses the shell ...) I don't personally care at all about Alpine, but
> maybe somebody who does could dig a little harder and characterize
> the problem there better.
>
>
We probably should care about Alpine, because it's a good distro to use
as the basis for Docker images, being fairly secure, very small, and
booting very fast.
I'll dig some more, and possibly set up a (docker based) buildfarm instance.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-06 16:12:56 | Re: A cost issue in ORDER BY + LIMIT |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-06 16:06:44 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |