I'm trying to load and unload modules using modprobe but I'm having problems. The command fails with "modprobe:
can't change directory to '/lib/modules': no such file or directory"
There is actually no /lib/modules directory on the image at all.
PS : I used yocto project to build Linux os image and I'm using the 3.14 kernel.
Any help would be appreciated!
Probably you just don't have any modules installed. Add
IMAGE_INSTALL += "kernel-modules"
to your image recipe.
Update:
If this does not add the modules to the image, your next steps to check are:
Check if there actually any modules built. Not all kernel configurations actually do this. An easy way is to look into the tmp/deploy/... directory that holds your generated packages.
Check if the setting actually gets propagated to the iamge. bitbake -e on your image will tell, grep for IMAGE_INSTALL.
Update 2:
For 1) All built kernel-modules are automatically packaged in packages starting with "kernel-module-". So if there is no package bearing that prefix and the module name you expect, then its not a problem of installing, but a problem of your kernel or kernel config not building the module at all.
For 2) "I can't read it all": Thats why I explicitly said "grep for IMAGE_INSTALL" - you shall not read it all, just see if that variable actually includes "kernel-modules".
Well I found the solution:
In fact
IMAGE_INSTALL += "kernel-modules"
Does not add modules folder under /lib . It does not work wiTh YOCTO PROJECT SUMO release. I added this
CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL += " kernel-modules"
to my local.conf and now the /lib/modules is found and kernel-modules are packaged
Related
I am a beginner with Singularity.
What I want to achieve in the long run: I have a programming project with a long lists of dependencies, and I want to be able to give the program to other people in my company without there being bugs caused by missing dependencies, or wrong versions of dependencies.
The idea was now to use Singularity in order to easily provide a working environment.
In order to test this, I wrote a Hello World application which I now want to run in a container. I have a folder HelloWorld/ which contains the source code for a C++ Qt project. Then I wrote the following recipe file:
project.recipe
Bootstrap: docker
From: ubuntu:18.04
%setup
cp -R <some_folder>/HelloWorld ${SINGULARITY_ROOTFS}/HelloWorld
%post
apt update
apt-get install -y qt5-default
apt install -y g++
apt-get install -y build-essential
cd HelloWorld
qmake
make
echo "after build:"
ls
%runscript
echo "before execution:"
ls HelloWorld/
./HelloWorld/HelloWorld
where the echos and directory listings are for my current debugging process.
I can sucessfully build an image file using sudo singularity build --writable project.img project.recipe. (My debugging output shows me that the executable was build successfully.)
The problem is now that if I try to run it using ./project.img, or singularity run project.img, it won't find the executable.
Using my debugging output, I found out that the lines in %runscript use the folders outside of the container.
Tutorials like https://sylabs.io/guides/3.1/user-guide/build_a_container.html made it seem to me as if my recipe was the way to go, but apparently it isn't?
My questions:
Is there some way for me to access my executable? Am I calling it wrong?
Is the way I do it the way it is supposed to be done? Or would one normally do something like getting the executable outside of the container and then use the container to call that outside file? Or is there a different best practice?
If the executable is to be copied outside of the container after compilation, how do I do that? How do I access outside folders when I'm within %post?
Is this the best work process for what I want to achieve? Later on, my idea is that the big project is copied likewise in the container, dependencies are either installed or copied, then the project is compiled and finally its source being deleted. I also considered using a repository, but I can't have the project being in an open repository, and I don't want to store any passwords.
Firstly, use %files, don't use %setup. %setup is run as root and can directly modify the host server. You can very easily and accidentally break things without realizing it. You can get the same effect this way:
%files
some_folder/HelloWorld /HelloWorld
You are calling it wrong. In your %setup (and hopefully now in your %files) steps, you are copying the data to /HelloWorld. In your %runscript your are calling ./HelloWorld/HelloWorld which is the equivalent of $PWD/HelloWorld/HelloWorld. Since singularity automatically mounts in $PWD (as well as $HOME and some other directories), you are not calling what you're trying to call.
You don't copy the executable outside of the container, you just need to make sure what you're executing is where you think it is.
There is no access to the host filesystem in %post, you should have everything you need copied in via %files first.
That's a reasonable workflow. Having a local private repo for the code is probably a good idea for tracking your changes, but that's your call.
Question
When building Singularity images using definition files, is there a way to specify the path to a file on the host system relative to the definition file (i.e. independent of where the build command is called)?
Example to Illustrate the Problem
I have the following files in the same directory (e.g. a git repository):
foobar.def
some_file.txt
foobar.def looks as follows:
Bootstrap: library
From: ubuntu:20.04
Stage: build
%files
# Add some_file.txt at the root of the image
some_file.txt /some_file.txt
This works fine when I build with the following command in the directory which contains the files:
singularity build --fakeroot foobar.sif foobar.def
However, it fails if I call the build command from anywhere else (e.g. from a dedicated "build" directory) because it searches some_file.txt relative to the current working directory of the build command, not relative to the definition file.
Is there a way to implement the definition file such that the build works independently of where the command is called? I know that I could use absolute paths but this is not a viable solution in my case.
To make it even more complicated: My actual definition file is bootstrapping from another local image, which is located in the build directory. So ideally I would need a solution where some files are found relative the working directory while others are found relative to the location of the definition file.
Short answer: Not really
Longer answer: Not really, but there's a reason why and it shouldn't really matter for most use cases. While Docker went the route of letting you specify what your directory context is, Singularity decided to base all of its commands off the current directory where it is being executed. This also follows with $PWD being auto-mounted into the container, so it makes sense for it to be consistent.
That said, is there a reason you can't run singularity build --fakeroot $build_dir/foobar.sif foobar.def from the repo directory? There isn't any other output written besides the final image and it makes more sense for the directory with the data being used to be the context to work from.
I'd like to be able to view and make changes to the source code of installed (via zef) perl6 modules. How can I do that?
On my system, the module sources are under ~/.perl6/sources/ and there's also some kind of metadata file about the modules in ~/.perl6/dist/.
I can also use zef locate ... to show a module's source path, but making changes directly to the source files doesn't seem to have any effects (i.e., use the module from the REPL doesn't show my changes).
I'm guessing it's because the modules were pre-compiled, and perl6 doesn't pick up my changes and re-precompile the modules when I make changes directly to the module source files that way...
UPDATE: Deleting the corresponding pre-compiled files under ~/.perl6/precomp/... seems to work, but I'm not sure how and if that messes up anything.
I'd like to be able to view and make changes to the source code of installed (via zef) perl6 modules. How can I do that?
Please, don't do it that way. Installed modules are supposed to be immutable and as you've found out: if there is a pre-compiled version of a module available, it will not check if the original source file has been updated. That's because it doesn't have to, because it is considered immutable.
If you want to test changes on an installed module, please download the tar file / git clone the module's distribution, make changes you need in there, and then do:
zef install . --force-install
while in the top directory in the distribution. That will re-install the module and handle pre-compilation for you.
I have a package that uses config.json for some settings it uses. I keep the package locally rather than installing it from CPAN. My problem is when I make changes to config.json, the package doesn't recognize the changes since the config file's cached elsewhere, forcing me to run zef install --force-install or delete precomp. How can I ensure that the package always recognizes updates to the config file?
When you install packages using zef, it keeps them in the filesystem, but their names are converted into sha1, something like
/home/jmerelo/.rakudobrew/moar-2018.03/install/share/perl6/site/sources/81436475BD18D66BFD96BBCEE07CCCDC0F368879
zef keeps track of them, however, and you can locate them using zef locate, for instance:
zef locate lib/Zef/CLI.pm6
You can run that from a program, for instance this way:
sub MAIN( Str $file ) {
my $location = qqx/zef locate $file/;
my $sha1 = ($location ~~ /\s+ \=\> \s+ (.+)/);
say "$file → $sha1[0]";
}
which will return pretty much the same, except it will give you the first location of the file you give it at the command line:
lib/Zef/CLI.pm6 → /home/jmerelo/.rakudobrew/moar-2018.03/install/share/perl6/site/sources/81436475BD18D66BFD96BBCEE07CCCDC0F368879
You probably need to install your config.json file in a resources directory (which is the preferred location) and then use something like that.
That said, probably actually installing a module you're testing is not the best strategy. If you're still testing things, it's probably better if you just keep it in the directory you're working with and use perl6 -I<that directory> or else use lib <that directory> is probably a better option. You can just delete that when you release, or keep it, since that only adds another directory to the search path and will not harm the released module.
I am installing a package manually on my own system because I need to make some changes to it that aren't available in the basic version in my package manager. I also am trying to keep packages installed locally if possible, so I'm installing it with prefix=$HOME/.local instead of the more common prefix=/usr/local.
When I do this, I have no problem executing the program from my terminal, because I added ~/.local/bin to my PATH and the package was installed with relative paths to its shared libraries (i.e. ~/.local/lib/<package>). Executing from the command line is no problem, but I want to be able to access it from the favorites menu in gnome, and for that I need to make use of the <package>.desktop file.
I could hard-code the path to the executable in the .desktop file itself, but when I pull a later version down and re-install it, I'll have to redo those steps. I was wondering if there's a way to avoid that.
I've tried symlinking the executable to a directory where .desktop files do have included in their path, and the application is correctly treated as a GUI option, but launching the executable results in an error trying to find a shared library. I think this has to do with how cmake handles rpaths, which to my understanding is a way of relatively linking executables with their required libraries.
I think what I want to do is have PATH inside a .desktop file include ~/.local/bin, without changing the .desktop file itself. Can I alter the 'default' path used in accessing a .desktop file?
The answer to my question was found in the Archwiki:
Specifically, I needed to add ~/.local/bin to my path in ~/.xinitrc. Now my graphical programs work as expected.