Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Build tiny ubxtool docker image and a binary depending on just glibc #56

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

darkk
Copy link

@darkk darkk commented Dec 23, 2019

That's useful to avoid native compilation on a Raspberry Pi itself while running a galmon probe.

That may also kinda reduce @akhepcat's pain of slow native compilation on RPi mentioned at #48.

Please, tell me if build-ubxtool should rather be a Makefile target.

That's useful to avoid native compilation on a Raspberry Pi itself while
running a galmon probe.
@akhepcat
Copy link
Contributor

just building ubxtool is probably fine for most folk for sure - definitely on the rPi, which is probably the majority of install cases. And why spin up a huge vm/docker just for one binary, if you don't have to?

@darkk
Copy link
Author

darkk commented Dec 23, 2019

Exactly! I also prefer to copy a bare binary to the rPi, but someone may prefer a tiny* docker image (e.g., if they already have some kind of docker-based services on the pi), and the image comes "for free" as a byproduct of the build process.

*) galmon image with all the deps and build tools is 728 MiB, ubxtool image is ~ 18 MiB, ubxtool.nodeps.x86_64 binary is 12 MiB (not stripped).

@darkk
Copy link
Author

darkk commented Feb 2, 2020

I've updated the code to produce the binary that works on Raspberry Pi 1 B+ (and Zero) as well. I faced couple of issues while doing that:

clang-8 and recent clang-10 should not be affected.

Maybe I've done something wrong, I have known almost nothing about the difference between CPU/FPU of various Pi boards before yesterday. :-) The binaries produced by the script runs at stations 50, 51 and 52 without noticeable issues. Following links helped me to understand what was going on:

@darkk darkk requested a review from ahupowerdns February 11, 2020 20:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants