[gmx-developers] manpage generation brakes build process
szilard.pall at cbr.su.se
Thu Aug 30 16:59:48 CEST 2012
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Roland Schulz <roland at utk.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Szilárd Páll <szilard.pall at cbr.su.se>
>> Commit 26bd5f7 made the build process generate man pages and broke
>> compilation for the most common cross-compile builds: when the build
>> host doesn't support the instruction set of the target, e.g. a
>> cluster's head node with "older" CPUs than the cluster nodes. To me it
>> seems that the CMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING variable used to implement the
>> detection of cross-compilation is pretty much useless because
>> apparently it takes into account only the CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME. This only
>> detects when one builds e.g Windows binaries on Linux, but nothing
>> The annoying part is that the build process fails a cryptic "error
>> 132" after linking the binary and the user won't have a clue what's
>> In my opinion by default automatically generating man pages is not
>> very important because:
>> - source releases can contain the man pages;
> This is already so. Cpack automatically adds the build man pages and the man
> pages are only build if they aren't in the source package. So this is a
> non-issue for users which download the source as a source package instead
> from git.
>> - the development versions are either:
>> - in pre-release stage when one wouldn't rely on the man pages being
>> very up-to-date anyway;
>> - post-release stage when there should not be many major changes
>> compared to the latest patch release.
>> I would suggest that we stick to installing static in-source man pages
>> by default and we can provide a switch to generate them during
>> building. It is fairly complicated to detect whether the binaries
>> built will run on the host,
> why? It is as simple as running a binary and see whether it worked, isn't
A binary or the binary that would be required to execute successfully
to generate the man page?
If it's only the architecture, instruction set, or operating system
incompatibility that can cause issues compiling and running a dummy
program should indeed be fine. However, I'm not sure that's always the
case. I'll think it through.
Does anybody know of cross-compilation cases where a dummy program
would execute, but e.g. mdrun wouldn't?
>> so I think it is not worth writing such
>> code that is error-prone and hard to maintain.
>> Does anybody have a better idea to fix this issue?
> I prefer if it is done automatically because that makes sure it is
> maintained. I think we should have as little as possible of things we do in
> the last second before a release (and thus delaying the release) to be able
> to release more frequently.
Maintaining the documentation has not much to with whether it is built
at run-time or not and I can't imagine that there have been so many
bugs in the man page generation itself (which is the only thing that's
ensured to be working through the auto-builds).
> I think it is OK as it is. Because disabling the build is as easy as
> GMX_BUILD_MANPAGES=no, and only effects developers and not users. But if you
> want me to add a check whether executing binaries is possible, I can do
Actually, many advanced users use the git version of the releases --
partly because of the super-sluggish release cycle. I'm not saying
that the feature is not useful, but users shouldn't have to first
figure out how to make compilation not fail with a cryptic error that
doesn't even suggest a solution.
Please do implement it If you (plural intended) think that the feature
is robust enough.
> admin/.isreposource is not specific for github. It is for any download which
> is not using git to download source which didn't go through cpack.
That is? Still sounds quite exotic, 2-3 official means of getting
Gromacs should be more than enough (git.gromacs.org, nightly source,
github as backup).
Again, I don't mind a single hidden file, but IMO we shouldn't add
code, not even a single line just to support some exotic way to obtain
>> gmx-developers mailing list
>> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
>> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
>> www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
> ORNL/UT Center for Molecular Biophysics cmb.ornl.gov
> 865-241-1537, ORNL PO BOX 2008 MS6309
> gmx-developers mailing list
> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers