[Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 2/2] scripts: docker: Add proxy settings

[Pan, Xiuli]

On 5/18/2018 16:42, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 11:13 +0800, Pan, Xiuli wrote:
>> On 5/17/2018 22:30, Liam Girdwood wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 11:49 +0800, Xiuli Pan wrote:
>>>>    # Use ToT alsa utils for the latest topology patches.
>>>>    RUN mkdir -p /root/alsa-build
>>>> -RUN cd /root/alsa-build && git clone git://git.alsa-project.org/alsa-
>>>> lib.git
>>>> -RUN cd /root/alsa-build && git clone git://git.alsa-project.org/alsa-
>>>> utils.git
>>>> +RUN cd /root/alsa-build && git clone http://git.alsa-project.org/http/als
>>>> a-li
>>>> b.git
>>>> +RUN cd /root/alsa-build && git clone http://git.alsa-project.org/http/als
>>>> a-ut
>>>> ils.git
>>>>    RUN cd /root/alsa-build/alsa-lib && ./gitcompile &&  make install
>>>>    RUN cd /root/alsa-build/alsa-utils && ./gitcompile &&  make install
>>> Can we have this as a cmd line option as http repos sometimes lag behind the
>>> git
>>> repo.  Default will be git:// repos.
>> Hi Liam,
>>
>> Sorry I did not receive this email at first and pinged.
>> The git repos will need some more proxy issues.
>
> No I mean, we pass in a extra cmd line argument to alter the behaviour of the
> script i.e to use http or git repos URLs

OK, Then I will change it like if we did not use proxy, then use git 
url. Othrewise use http proxy.

>>   As for to build the
>> docker,  I think the minor lag for the alsa-lib is acceptable.
> This has been days out of date in the past.
>
>> We won't change much about it and actually the ct-ng build is extremely
>> slow in docker.
>> I have had a docker image and I think most people may be happy to pull a
>> docker instead of build a docker themselves.
>> The final built docker is about 10G with cache. It is even slower than
>> to build an environment on the host directly.
> Maybe the docker script can delete the cross tool build directories after it has
> completed all the gcc builds ? This would save a lot of space.
That should be a quick way. And I found that we need some built tools 
for the autogen and configure for the SOF.
It is a lot of space. But the build cache is the big deal.
I think if we can get a docker image online. People will prefer to use 
the image since it will also save a lot of time.

>> I pushed mine sof docker image to docker hub, do you think we could have
>> a public release for this?
> Yes.
Cool, We may have a sync with Jocelyn about this.
>> Pull an image is faster than build one. And we don't need to track the
>> alsa-lib very close.
>>
> But how would users know to update it when there were ALSA or gcc updates ?

We may need some docker version scripts for the docker. All docker will 
have a ENV when build.
If we have some major change that need some update with cross compiler 
or ALSA lib. We can modify the version in the docker as well as the 
configure check.
If the docker ENV version is less than the SOF required version. We may 
have a message like:"The docker ENV is out of date. Please rebuilt the 
docker or pull the latest docker form docker hub"

Thanks
Xiuli
> Liam
>
>> Thanks
>> Xiuli
>>
>>
>>> Liam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sound-open-firmware mailing list
>> Sound-open-firmware at alsa-project.org
>> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/sound-open-firmware